IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 22ND DECEMBER 2009 / 1ST POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 36232 of 2009(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ SRI. MOHANDASAN K, LABORATORY TECHNICIAN GRADE I, PUBLIC HEALTH CENTRE, MOONNIYOOR, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM) SRI.PRASANTH M.P RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICE, HEALTH SERVICE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, MANJERI. 3. THE MEDICAL OFFICER, PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE, MOONNIYOOR, MALAPPURAM. 4. SMT. K. GEETHA, N.F.C.P. UNIT, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE-1 5. SMT. S. SABITHA, N.F.C.P. UNIT, KANNUR, KANNUR-1. SR.GOVT.PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 36232 OF 2009 (Y) ===================== Dated this the 22nd day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner challenges the appointment of respondents to the post of Assistant Entomologist. According to the petitioner, though applications were invited, the circular did not reach his office and therefore he could not make application. It is also his case that even prior to the circular, he had already submitted Ext.P2 representation seeking appointment to the post of Entomologist and therefore even in the absence of any application, his candidature ought to have been considered. In support of his plea that the application did not reach his office and therefore he was deprived of an opportunity to make an application, he refers to Exts.P4 and P5. 2. Learned Government Pleader has obtained instructions in the matter. It is submitted that on 13/12/2005, the Director of Health Services issued circular inviting applications to the post of Assistant Entomologist specifying 15/2/2006 as the last date for receipt of application. It is stated that no application was received from the petitioner. It is also stated that appointments WPC 36232/09 :2 : in pursuance to the circular referred to above were made as early as on 3/7/07 and therefore, a challenge at this distance of time is belated. 3. It may be true that prior to the issuance of a notification, petitioner would have submitted Ext.P2 representation. But that was only a representation and the authorities were under no obligation to take cognizance of that. Therefore, as and when a notification was issued inviting application, the petitioner ought to have submitted his application. In this respect, his complaint is that the notification did not reach his office and that therefore he was deprived of an opportunity to make the application. However, from the facts, it can be seen that the party respondents were appointed as early as on 3/7/07. Ext.P4 representation complaining of non receipt of the circular was made by the petitioner on 30/7/2007 and Ext.P6 is dated 5/8/07. This therefore shows that the petitioner was aware of the circular and the appointments way back in July 2007 itself. However, it is only now that the petitioner has approached this Court. His justification is that his representations were pending. WPC 36232/09 :3 : 4. Evidently, there is long delay and latches on the part of the petitioner and if so, at this distance of time, this Court will not be justified in interfering with the matter. The fact that the petitioner submitted a representation which has no statutory force also does not enable the petitioner to seek to get the delay in the matter condoned. On facts, therefore, I am not persuaded to interfere. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp