IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 20TH MAY 2010 / 30TH VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 10125 of 2010(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MANIKANTAN, S/O. ANIRIUDHAN, AGED 26 YEARS, PLAVILA VADAKKATHIL, CHITTOOR, PANMANA VILLAGE, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI. K.SIJU SRI.S.SUDHEESHKAR SRI.A.MUHAMMED RAFFI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. EMPLOYMENT OFFICER, EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY. 2. DISTRICT EMPLOYMENT OFFICER, DISTRICT EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE, KOLLAM. 3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA MINERALS AND METALS LTD., CHAVARA, KOLLAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.ARAVINDKUMAR BABU SC SRI.K.ANAND THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J ------------------- W.P.(C).10125/2010 -------------------- Dated this the 20th day of May, 2010 JUDGMENT The grievance of the petitioner is that although he had valid registration with the Employment Exchange, he was not sponsored to the 3rd respondent in response to a requisition made to sponsor candidates for the post of Equipment Operator. The learned Government Pleader was directed to obtain instructions. According to the learned Government Pleader, going by the particulars of registration available with the 1st respondent, the licence possessed by the petitioner was valid till 14.7.2007. It is stated that although the petitioner was directed to produce the renewed licence on or before 23.2.2010, he did not produce the same and that it was therefore, he was not sponsored. 2. Ext.P3 is the licence produced by the petitioner which also shows that the same has been renewed with effect from 15.7.2007. This supports the case of the learned Government W.P.(C).10125/10 2 Pleader that as per the particulars available with the respondent, the licence was valid only till 14.7.2007. 3. Nothing has been placed on record by the petitioner to indicate that the renewed licence was produced before the 1st respondent before 1.3.2010 when candidates were sponsored. If that be so, as on 1.3.2010 going by the particulars available with the 1st respondent, petitioner was an ineligible candidate and hence, I cannot find fault with the 1st respondent for not sponsoring the petitioner. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs