IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 25TH JANUARY 2008 / 5TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 3043 of 2008(K) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ SHIBI THOMAS, KONIKKARA HOUSE, VADANAPPALLY, CHAVAKKAD TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.T.S.RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI SRI.T.R.RAJEEV RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, CIVIL SUPPLIES COMMISSIONERATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR. 3. THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, CHAVAKKAD. 4. USHA, W/O.K.SUBRAMANIAN, KOLAZHIKARAN HOUSE, S.N.NAGAR, VADOOKARA, THRISSUR. 5. E.F.JOHNSON, AWD NO.3 CKD, CHAVAKKAD TALUK. R1 TO 3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI I.V.PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C) 3043 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated: January 25, 2008 JUDGMENT The main relief sought for in this writ petition is to compel the 1st respondent not to appoint the 4th respondent as AWD. Though other substantial prayers are also made, petitioner now confines his request only to direct the 2nd respondent to furnish him a copy of any order appointing any candidate as a temporary AWD, before its implementation. 2. In this case nobody has been appointed as a temporary AWD in the vacancy arose consequent on the death of late Sri K.B.Subramanian. Petitioner submits that by making Exts.P3 and P4, he too had applied for temporary appointment and the applications have been directed to be considered within the time limit fixed by Ext.P7 judgment of this court. 3. Now that enquiry is pending as is evident from Ext.P8, the relief sought for in this writ petition for furnishing a copy of the appointment order can arise for consideration only when an WP(C) 3043/08 Page numbers appointment is made. At that stage if the petitioner makes a request to the 2nd respondent, I have no doubt that the 2nd respondent will issue a copy of the order. Petitioner submits that he be issued a copy of the appointment order, before it is implemented. Being a candidate who had applied for appointment, though the petitioner can ask for a copy of the appointment order, I do not think that there is any justification for the prayer made. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mt/-