IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN THURSDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2011 / 27TH SRAVANA 1933 WA.No. 1208 of 2011() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.13551/2011 Dated 05/07/2011 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER. ----------------- A.SATHEESHKUMAR, S/O.ANNAMALA, NEAR BHAGAVATHY COLONY, 5TH MILE, KUNNAMKATTUPATHY P.O., VIA CHITTUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS ------------------------- 1. THE MOOLATHARA SERVICE CO-OP. BANK LTD., NO.518, MEENAKSHIPURAM,PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678 533. 2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GNERAL), PALAKKAD, PIN-678 001. ADV.SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM GOVT.PLEADER, SRI.GEORGE MECHERIL THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. ------------------------------- W.A.No.1208 OF 2011 -------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of August, 2011 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ C.N.Ramachandran Nair, J. The appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge declining to interfere with Ex.P4 notification issued by the respondent bank for selection of one peon and one night watchman. The appellant's case is that he was in the select list with Rank No.2 in the earlier occasion when selection was made only for appointment to the post of one Peon. This Court vide Ext.P3 judgment gave an opportunity to the appellant to represent the bank to consider him for appointment to the post if any existing. The appellant's case is that even though representation was made pursuant to Ext.P3 judgment no communication was received from the bank. So much so, fresh notification is not tenable is the contention of the appellant. However, what we notice is that Ext.P3 judgment was rendered in 24.3.2010 and fresh notification for appointment was issued only on 10.1.2011 which itself was W.A.No.1208/2011 2 challenged by the petitioner by filing W.P.(C) on May, 2011 which got dismissed in July 2011. We do not find any justification for the appellant's delay in challenging the notification and failure to approach the Court for non- consideration of application pursuant to Ext.P3 judgment. Therefore, we feel the Single Judge rightly declined to interdict the bank from making selection for appointment based on notification. If the appellant is interested, he is also free to apply for the post. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the Writ Appeal. Accordingly, it is dismissed. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) ( P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE) ps/18/8