IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 30TH OCTOBER 2009 / 8TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 30920 of 2009(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SURENDRANATH A, ANJANGAD HOUSE, VALILLAPPUZHA P.O., AREACODE, MALAPPURAM DT. BY ADV. MR. T.K.AJITH KUMAR MR. P.VINODKUMAR RESPONDENT: --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT ANIMAL HUSBANDARY OFFICER, CIVIL STTION, UP HILL P.O., MALAPPURAM (DT), 2. THE DISTRICT EMPLOYMENT OFFICER, MALAPPURAM CIVIL STATION, UP HILL P.O., MLAPPURAM (DT) BY ADG. ANU SIVARAMAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ........................................... W.P.(C)NO.30920 OF 2009-H ............................................. Dated this the 30th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T It is stated that the 1st respondent issued a notification inviting applications for the post of Part Time Sweeper. The petitioner was one of the applicants. He was called for interview by Ext.P1 call letter. He was also interviewed. Finally Ext.P2 ranked list has been published where the petitioner is included as Sl.No.50. Subsequently this writ petition is filed contending that the selection should not have been concluded on the basis of interview alone and that the interview conducted and the ranked list prepared on that basis is illegal. 2. In my view, this is a clear case where the theory of sitting on the fence applies. The notification itself specified the method of selection. Knowing fully well the interview is the method of selection, the petitioner applied for the post. He subjected himself to the selection process. It is only after the ranked list has been prepared in which the petitioner has obtained a lower rank that the petitioner has chosen to : 2 : W.P.(C)NO.30920 OF 2009-H challenge the ranked list. This is impermissible. Further, if the ranked list has to be quashed, the persons included in the ranked list, either all of them or at least some of them, should be parties to the writ petition. That also has not been done. 3. In these circumstances, I am not persuaded to interfere with this writ petition. The writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE cl