IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 12TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 23RD MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 29718 of 2006(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ R.UNNIKRISHNAN, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.RAMACHANDRAN, LAKSHMI BHAVAN, PANDIPARAMBU ROAD, KANNANKULANGARA, THRIPPUNITHURA. BY ADV. SRI.G.D.PANICKER SMT.JEENA JOSEPH RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. DIRECTOR OF EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. EMPLOYMENT OFFICER, TOWN EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE, THRIPUNITHURA. 3. DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, COCHIN SPECIAL ECON0MIC ZONE, GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY, KAKKANAD, COCHIN-682 037. 4. SELMA SKARIA, KODIYAMTHADATHIL, EDAKKATTUVAYAL P.O., 682 313. BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.NANDAKUMAR SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 29718 of 2006 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1- A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER NO.33/2004 DATED 6.8.04 EXT.P2- A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER NO.47/2004 DATED 23.11.04 EXT.P3- A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER NO.5/05 DATED 18.2.2005 EXT.P4- A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 21.6.06 EXT.P5- A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LIST DATED 10.10.06 FORWARDED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.P6- A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 9.6.05 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER IN THE OFFICE OF THE THIRD RESPONDENT (TRUE COPY) P.A TO JUDGE V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).29718/2006 -------------------- Dated this the 12th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner registered his name with the second respondent. He belongs to Hindu Kudumbi Community which is an OBC. He was appointed for a short spell of 89 days as Hindi Typist with the third respondent. But later, fourth respondent was appointed as Hindi Typist and the selection has been impugned in the writ petition. According to the petitioner, as is evidenced by Ext.P5, the name of the fourth respondent alone was included. Petitioner contends that this seems to be a brazen attempt on the part of the third respondent to select the chosen one and there is no justification in the exclusion of other eligible candidates. 2. In the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, it is stated that the prescribed age limit for the post is 18-25 and the petitioner was at the age of 29 years and 11 months as on 31.10.2006. Therefore, petitioner was not considered for selection. W.P.(C).29718/2006 2 3. With regard to the fourth respondent, it is submitted that she was within the age limit and was also qualified for the post since she was the senior most among the fully qualified candidates. 4. Counter affidavit has been filed by the third respondent also. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 5. In view of the fact that the petitioner was not qualified for the post, but at the same time fourth respondent was qualified, I do not think it is open to the petitioner to impugn the selection and for the aforementioned reason, I do not find it necessary to consider whether more than one person should have been included in Ext.P5. Since the petitioner, any way could not have been included and the person actually included is eligible, such contention need not be further proved. For all these reasons, I do not find any grounds W.P.(C).29718/2006 3 to interfere with the selection process. Writ petition is bereft of merit and the same is dismissed. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs