IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2010 / 10TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 10127 of 2010(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SREEKUMARI.V, W/O.RAJEEV KUMAR.M, AGED 38 YEARS, PADMA VILAS, TC 14/252, POONTHI ROAD, KUMARAPURAM, MEDICAL COLLEGE (P.O), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-11. BY ADV. SMT.SUMATHY DANDAPANI, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION(SERVICES D) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SELECTION COMMITTEE FOR APPOINTMENT UNDER SCHEME FOR OUTSTANDING SPORTS PERSONS IN PUBLIC SERVICES,GENERAL ADMINISTRATION(SERVICES D) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. ARAVINDUKUMAR BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.10127 OF 2010 (M) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner claims that she is an accomplished handball player having achievements to her credit during the year 1987-1988. She claimed appointment under sports quota. On being unsuccessful she approached this court and filed WP(c).No.5667/05, challenging certain appointments made and also claiming appointment. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P1 judgment dated 20th June, 2008 directing that if she has any grievance left, she may approach the first respondent Government. 2. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted a representation resulting in Ext.P2 order dated 4.12.2008 rejecting her claim mainly on the ground that the petitioner was an applicant under the discipline hand ball and all certificates produced by the petitioner along with her application were of between 1985-1990 and the petitioner had no achievement during the year 1997-2001, which was the criteria for the selection in question. 3. Petitioner did not challenge Ext.P2. However, certain other applicants,claiming appointment approached this court and had WPC.No. 10127/2010 :2 : filed O.P.No.21585/01 and WP(c).No.5726/04 Those cases were disposed of by Ext.P3 judgment dated 29th March, 2007 directing the Government to consider the case of some of the petitioners therein. 4. On that basis Government issued Ext.P4 order dated 23.9.2009 provisionally appointing the petitioners 2 and 3 mentioned in Ext.P3 judgment. Now, belatedly, the petitioner has approached this court challenging Ext.P2 order dated 4.12.2008 and claiming that she should also be given employment similar to the persons mentioned in Ext.P4 order referred to above. 5. In my view, petitioner cannot succeed. First of all she did not approach this court in time, challenging Ext.P2. On the other hand petitioner has approached this court challenging Ext.P2 long after Ext.P4 order was passed . Therefore on the ground of delay and latches the writ petition has to fail. That apart a reading of Ext.P2 order shows that the petitioner did not satisfy the eligibility criteria laid down in the notification against which she submitted an application for appointment. If that be so, for that reason as well, Ext.P2 order deserves to be upheld and I do so. Writ Petition fails and is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) vi JUDGE WPC.No. 10127/2010 :3 : vi/