IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH APRIL 2008 / 20TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 12123 of 2008(R) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ NIRMALA C., SHEEJA BHAVAN KARICODE P.O., T.K.M. KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.SIVARAJ RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE DIVISIONAL OFFICER FIRE AND RESCUE SERVICES, SOUTHERN RANGE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-01. 2. THE ASSISTANT DIVISIONAL OFFICER FIRE AND RESCUE SERVICES, KADAPPAKADA, KOLLAM. 3. LILLIKUTTY PART TIME SWEEPER, FIRE AND RESCUE STATION KADAKKAL, KOLLAM. G.P. SHRI.BEJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No.12123 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 9th day of April, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is an aspirant for the post of Part Time Sweeper at Kadakkal Fire and Rescue Services. Although the petitioner was interviewed, she was not selected. Therefore, she filed Ext.P2 representation before the 1st respondent. This Court directed the 1st respondent to take a decision on Ext.P2 after hearing the petitioner. Pursuant thereto, Ext.P4 order has been passed. Petitioner's grievance in this writ petition is that Ext.P4 order has not been passed properly. According to the petitioner, she was the better candidate and her superior claim has not been considered by the 1st respondent. She further complains that in Ext.P4 the name of the person who has been appointed has not been mentioned. Therefore, her submission is that Ext.P4 is unsustainable. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. 3. I do not find anything unsustainable in Ext.P4. The comparative merit between the petitioner and the person w.p.c.12123/08 2 selected is only a self assessment of the petitioner. The petitioner does not even know the qualification of the person selected. Therefore, I am unable to understand how the petitioner came to the conclusion that the petitioner is better suited than the appointed candidate. Simply because in Ext.P4 the name of the person who has been selected is not mentioned, the same does not affect the validity of Ext.P4. The petitioner does not have any allegations of malafides against the 1st respondent. That being so, I am not inclined to entertain the contentions of the petitioner. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge