IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2010 / 8TH MAGHA 1931 WA.No. 56 of 2007 ------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.18870/2006 Dated 29/09/2006 .................... APPELLANT: PETITIONER ------------------------------------- SATHYACHANDRAN.A.R., AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.LATE RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, KOOVAPLAVIL, PERUMPETTY P.O., MALLAPPALLY, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (VIGILANCE), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, ROADS DIVISION, PATHANAMTHITTA. 4. SURESH.V.K., VELAMPARAMPIL HOUSE, KULATHOOR PRAYAR P.O., MALLAPPALLY, PATHANAMTHITTA. SMT.SUNITHA SUKUMARAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1 TO 3 SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR FOR R4 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------- W.A. No. 56 of 2007 ---------------------------------------- Dated 28th January, 2010 Judgment Balakrishnan Nair, J. The appellant is the writ petitioner. He was a candidate sponsored by the Employment Exchange for appointment to the post of Ferryman at Nooluveli Kadavu of PWD Road Section, Mallappally. Pursuant to the call letter received by him, appellant submits, he attended the interview. But, according to him, there was no interview or practical test. So, he filed Ext.P3 representation before the Director of Vigilance and Anti-corruption to enquire into the irregularities in the selection. But, finding that the fourth respondent was appointed as the Ferryman, the writ petition was filed challenging his appointment and also seeking a direction to the second respondent to conduct an investigation into Ext.P3 complaint. The respondents filed a statement in the writ petition pointing out that Ext.P3 complaint was not received by W.A. No.56/2007 2 them. It was also pointed out that 22 candidates were sponsored by the Employment Exchange. Though call letters were sent to all of them, only 18 appeared. A practical test and interview was held and, based on the marks awarded, the person who secured the highest marks was appointed. The petitioner got only three marks whereas the fourth respondent got five marks. Noticing the submissions in the said statement, the writ petition was dismissed. Hence, this appeal by the writ petitioner. 2. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant claims that not even an interview was held. But, the third respondent has filed a statement to the effect that interview and practical test were conducted and, based on the marks awarded, selection was made. We find no reason to disbelieve the statement of the third respondent. Further, the case of the petitioner that he has preferred Ext.P3 representation before the third respondent is also disputed by the said respondent. The learned Judge in the judgment under appeal noticed that even after the denial of the third W.A. No.56/2007 3 respondent of the receipt of Ext.P3, the petitioner has not chosen to produce any material to support his claim. So, the said dispute also will go against the appellant. Further, the prayer to direct vigilance enquiry cannot be issued by this Court. If any criminal offence is committed by the Government officials, the appellant can move the Vigilance Court concerned. It is not proper for the High Court to issue a direction to hold a vigilance enquiry for the mere asking of it. In the result, we see no merit in the appeal. Accordingly, it is dismissed. K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR Judge P.N.RAVINDRAN Judge vaa