IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 30TH JUNE 2008 / 9TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 37921 of 2007(M) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------------- AJAYABHANU V.K.,S/O. V.M.KUTTAPPAN, AGED 39 YEARS, DRAVIDA, MANGANAM PO, KOTTAYAM 686 018. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. THE ATTAPPADI HILLS AREA DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY , BHOOTHIVAZHY, AGALI ,PALAKKAD DISRICT (AHADS) REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN AGALI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. THE PROJECT OFFICER, THE ATTAPPADI HILLS AREA DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY, BHOOTHIVAZHY, AGALI,PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. NANDAKUMAR - R1 & R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.37921/2007 M APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DTD. 06/11/2007 OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT ORGANISATION. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE ADVERTISEMENT IN THE MANGALAM DAILY DTD. 26/10/2007. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE CALL LETTER DTD. 07/12/2007 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE RESUME OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE COMPUTER PRINT OUT OF THE NOTIFICATION DTD. 25/09/2006. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE CALL LETTER DTD. 07/12/2007 FOR THE POST OF ASST.DIRECTOR (CIVIL). RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss V.GIRI, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C).No.37921 of 2007 M ------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of June, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner is working as Hydrologist in the office of the 1st respondent. He was engaged with effect from 6.12.2006. According to him, the post of Assistant Director (Civil) in the organisation became vacant on 14.09.2007. But apparently, selection was proceeded with, without inviting applications from eligible persons. The petitioner's grievance is that, though the petitioner is qualified for the post of Assistant Director (Civil) and he could have, therefore, in the normal course of events, applied for the post, he was denied an opportunity. Hence this writ petition. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent, inter alia, contending that notification No.3790/2005 dated 25.09.2006 was issued calling for selection to the post of Assistant Director (Civil). It was issued through the Public Relations Department (PRD) in W.P.(C).NO.37921/07 :: 2 :: various Malayalam Dailies on 14.10.2006, since a notification was being issued for the post of Project Director (Agronomy and Soil Conservation) and Librarian, the post of Assistant Director (Civil) was also included in the same notification, to avoid procedural delay and to save expenditure. 3. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit and an additional affidavit. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is inadequate publicity for the post. He points out that the vacancy in the post of Assistant Director (Civil) in the organisation arose only on 14.09.2007 and if that be so, no purpose would have been served by notifying the said post also in the notification published on 14.10.2006. 5. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.Jacob Sebastian and the learned Senior Government Pleader Mr.P.Nandakumar. I requested the Government Pleader to make W.P.(C).NO.37921/07 :: 3 :: available the copies of the paper publication effected on 14.10.2006 to verify whether the post of Assistant Director (Civil) was also included therein. Mr.Nandakumar has made available copies of Desabhimani, Kerala Koumidi, Mangalam and Varthamanam published on 14.10.2006. The post of Assistant Director (Civil) in the office of the first respondent was included in the said notification. If that be so, the primary contention raised by the petitioner, that applications were not invited for post of Assistant Director (Civil), does not seem to be correct. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the very action by which the post to which a vacancy would arise only on 14.09.2007 is notified as early as on 14.10.2006, is a pre-determined move on the part of the respondents. 7. Learned Government Pleader refutes the said submission and contends that the W.P.(C).NO.37921/07 :: 4 :: earlier incumbent, who was occupying the said post of Assistant Director (Civil), was actually received on deputation from another department and he had given a notice originally to be relieved from the 1st respondent with effect from 6.11.2006. This was one of the reasons why the post of Assistant Director (Civil) was also included in the notification dated 25.09.2006 published on 14.10.2006. There is force in the submission made by the learned Government Pleader. At any rate, in the absence of any statutory Rule prescribing a time frame, within which the notification inviting applications may have to be issued, there is nothing wrong in the post being notified well ahead of the date on which the vacancy is scheduled to arise as such. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire process now proposed to be undertaken is an eye wash and the person, who will be selected to the post of Assistant W.P.(C).NO.37921/07 :: 5 :: Director (Civil), has already been decided. Learned Government Pleader submits that the person so named in the additional affidavit is also working in the same office like the petitioner. I do not think that there is any necessity to go into the question whether the selection process undertaken by the respondent is, in any manner, vitiated or otherwise bad. I do not find any ground to uphold the said contention raised by the petitioner. For all these reasons, the writ petition is bereft of merit and the same is dismissed. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy//