IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2009 / 1ST ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 17855 of 2009(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- PUSHPA K.K., DEEPA VILASAM, KIZHAKKEKKARA, MELILA P.O., KOTTARAKKARA. BY ADV. SRI.DEEPU THANKAN SMT.G.RANJITA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER (HEALTH), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES, DIRECTORATE OF HEALTH SERVICES, GENERAL HOSPITAL JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SECRETARY, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF KERALA, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).17855/2009 -------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner, an inmate of Sri Chitra Home for Destitute and the Infirm, Thiruvananthapuram, appeared for an interview for the appointment of Hospital Assistant Grade-II conducted on 16.2.2009. Petitioner has not been selected. Her grievance is that she has not been given the priority marks that have been given to the inmates of After Care Homes, Orphanages and Rescue Homes and that she has not been given the benefit of the Government Order which provides that inmates of After Care Homes and Orphanages recognized by the Government or receiving the grant from the Government will be given age concession for ten years over and above the maximum age limit. Petitioner seeks a direction to consider her representation and also give her an appointment to the post of Hospital Assistant Grade-II. 2. A statement has been filed by the 1st respondent. 372 vacancies of Hospital Attender Grade-II in Thiruvananthapuram District was reported to the Employment Directorate. A list of 2973 candidates was forwarded and an W.P.(C).17855/09 2 interview was conducted. Candidates were selected on the basis of the marks awarded to them. The Employment Director has issued a list taking into account the caste, priority and non priority sector. Petitioner has been given full five marks for special priority in appointment on account of the fact that she is a widow and also taking into account other priorities as well. In spite of the same, she has not secured enough marks to be appointed. 3. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader. Proceedings relating to the selection have been made available. I have perused the same. I do not find any reason to disbelieve the version given in the statement filed on behalf of the 1st respondent. There cannot be a direction to merely appoint the petitioner. The selection as such has not been challenged as well. I do not find my way to issue any direction in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs