IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2011 / 1ST MAGHA 1932 WA.No. 87 of 2011 ------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.36647/2010 Dated 08/12/2010 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: --------------------------- JAYAKUMAR K.V., S/O.HARIDAS, MALIYEKKAL HOUSE, KANIMANGALAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.K.DILEEP KUMAR RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------- 1. HIGH COURT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY REGISTRAR GENERAL, ERNAKULAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, LAW DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R2 BY SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER, SRI. BENNY GERVASIS. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J. ------------------------------------------ W.A. No. 87 of 2011 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 21st day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT J.Chelameswar, C.J. Aggrieved by judgment dated 8th December, 2010 in W.P.(C) No.36647 of 2010 the unsuccessful petitioner therein preferred the instant writ appeal. 2. The dispute pertains to the selection of District Judges pursuant to a notification dated 16.4.2007. 3. It is a matter on record of this Court that after the protracted two rounds of litigation the selection process is finalized very recently pursuant to the final judgment of this Court in reported in Jayachandran v. High Court of Kerala ( 2010 (4) KLT 49). 4. The appellant herein was initially appointed pursuant to the notification referred to above, but had to be dislodged from the service. The reasons were set out in the above reported judgment. In such circumstances, now the appellant seeks to reopen the entire issue by the writ petition from out of which the present appeal arises. The writ petition was filed with the prayers as follows: “A. To declare that the petitioner is entitled to get grace mark to the tune of one mark in each of the papers where he has secured only 99 marks and accordingly eligible for the cut off marks W.A.87 of 2011 - 2 - of 50% for written test conducted for the post of District Judges; B. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or such other writ or order directing the first respondent to grant one mark in each of the papers in which the petitioner secured only 99 marks in the written test for District Judges; C. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or such other writ or order directing the first respondent to decide and dispose of the Ext.P5 representation submitted by the petitioner.” 5. It can be seen that the prayers are not based on any legal right. Coupled with the irresponsibility of the appellant/petitioner in making a statement at page 6 of the writ petition which reads as follows: “iii) The first respondent's act of destruction of the answer sheets in a hurry, is to be looked upon with extreme suspicion. Within a week after the pronouncement of the decision by this Hon'ble Court in Jayachandran v. High Court of Kerala, the first respondent is said to be destroyed the answer sheets. It is difficult to believe, without waiting for further litigation before the Apex Court. Whatever may be its correctness and propriety of such conduct, the petitioner became a looser, permanently lost the opportunity for verification and cross checking for inflating a minimum of one mark. Even though, the situation does not warrant the drawing of adverse inference, definitely, it speaking eloquently a suspicious circumstance. The petitioner's case is to be viewed and appreciated in the light of said suspicious conduct from the part of the first respondent.” W.A.87 of 2011 - 3 - leaves us in no doubt that the present proceedings is not only an abuse of the process of this Court but the appellant also is absolutely reckless in making allegations without even verifying the basic facts. 6. The above mentioned judgment of this Court as a matter of fact was challenged before the Supreme Court and dismissed. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the writ appeal is not only to be dismissed at the admission stage but must be dismissed with exemplary costs. The writ appeal is dismissed with costs quantified at `20,000 (Rupees twenty thousand) to be paid to the Kerala Legal Services Authority within a period of two weeks from today failing which the Secretary of the Legal Services Authority shall initiate appropriate proceedings for recovery of the same. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Judge vns