IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 22ND SEPTEMBER 2008 / 31ST BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 28086 of 2008(R) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- PRASEEDA K.V. AGED 27 YEARS, W/O. SUNILKUMAR, A.P.K. HOUSE, CHERUVACHERY, MATHAMANGALAM P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA-REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATIO, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KANNUR. 3. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, MADAYI, KANNUR DISTRICT. 4. THE MANAGER, PARUR A.L.P.SCHOOL PANAPUZHA P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT. 5. P.JAYAKRISHNAN PARUR DESOM, PANAPUZHA P.O, M.M.BAZAR (VIA), KANNUR DISTRICT BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.T.T.MOHAMMED THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 28086 OF 2008 R = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 22nd day of September 2008 J U D G M E N T Ext. P8 is under challenge. As can be seen from Ext. P8, this order is of 28.6.2007. No explanation, much less any satisfactory explanation, is forthcoming explaining the delay involved. On that ground itself, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 2. Apart from that, I have every reason to doubt the bonafides of this petitioner. It is to be noted that when the beneficiary of Ext. P8 had filed W.P.(C) No. 4223/08 for the implementation of the same, and a stranger had filed WPC No. 2529/08 challenging Ext.P8. The challenge against Ext. P8 was repelled on the ground of want of locus standi and Ext.P8 was ordered to be implemented. That common judgment was rendered on 18.9.2008. In that judgment the contention that there was no advertisement of the post was declined to be considered as there was no pleading to that effect. Now this writ petition is filed curing that defect. I am sure W.P(C)No.28086/2008 -2- that this writ petition has now been filed only because of the earlier writ petition was dismissed on grounds mentioned above and is calculated to delay the approval of appointment ordered as per Ext.P8. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-