IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 21ST FEBRUARY 2011 / 2ND PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 4472 of 2011(H) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- SHAJIL KUMAR A. AGED 43, S/O.ALEX.S. THAMARASSERY, KAVANAD PO,. KOLLAM DISTRICT, KERALA 691 003. BY ADV. SRI. JOHNSON MANAYANI SRI. BENHUR JOSEPH MANAYANI RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. KERALA MINERALS AND METALS LTD. (A GOVERNMENT OF KERALA UNDERTAKING) SANKARAMANGALAM CHAVARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT- 691 583 REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. JOINT GNERAL MANAGER,(P&A)/EDP KERALA MINERALS AND METALS LTD. SANKARAMANGALAM CHAVARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN 691 583 3. DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, (P&A) OF -DO- -DO- 4. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT,TRIVANDRUM- 695 001 R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. ANTONY MUKKATH R1 & R2 BY ADV. M/S.B.S.KRISHNAN ASSOCIATES, SC. KMML SRI.K.ANAND (A.201) SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: SMT S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.4472 OF 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of February, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner in this writ petition was an employee employed by the contractor who took on contract certain works on behalf of the first respondent. According to the petitioner, originally, in the matter of employment of the first respondent Company, contractors employees were given preference, which preference was taken away during the course of selection process by imposing a condition that the employees should be residents of nearby panchayats near to the locality of the first respondent Company. The petitioner, therefore, seeks the following reliefs: “i. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writs, directions or orders commanding the respondents to accept the petitioner's Ext.P7 application and appoint him in the post of Junior worker in the Titanium Dioxide Pigment Unit in pursuance to Ext.P1. ii. Declare that the inclusion of the new clause with regard to the surrounding Panchayat i.e. only applicants in the surrounding Panchayat are entitled for interview under Ext.P1 is incorrect and illegal and it is liable to be declared as illegal. iii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writs, directions or orders directing the respondents not to implement the clause stipulating W.P.(C)No.4472/11 2 that the applicants are entitled for review if only they reside from the surrounding panchayat of the first respondent company” I had considered the very same issue in W.P.(C) Nos.1816/11 and 4020/11 and dismissed similar claims. For parity of reasons, this writ petition is also dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(C)No.4472/11 3