IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 12TH DECEMBER 2011 / 21ST AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 2362 of 2006(F) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- Y. STANLY, S/O. YOHANNAN, HOUSE NO.1318, VALIYATHODI, P.O. NADAKKAVU, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN SRI.K.PRAVEENKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER OF HEALTH, KOZHIKODE. 3. THE EMPLOYMENT OFFICER, DISTRICT EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE, KOZHIKODE. 4. P. RAJAN, PARADISE HOUSE, PERIKKAKODE, ADUVODE, MAVOOR P.O., KOZHIKODE. GOVT. PLEADER BY ADV. SRI.SIVAN MADATHIL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: AS WPC.2362/2006 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE COMMUNITY CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KATCHERI TO THE PETITIONER 15.1.05. P1(A): COPY OF THE LIST SENT BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P2: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO. A3-5181/2003 OF FEBRUARY 2005 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT P3: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DT. 21.2.2005. P4: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 6776/05 OF THIS HON'BL COURT DATED 24.5.2005. P5: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION SENT BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 16.11.2005. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A TO JUDGE AS S. SIRI JAGAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No.2362 of 2006 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 12th day of December, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner's name was sponsored by the Employment Exchange for selection to the post of Part- time Sweeper in the Health Services Department of the Government of Kerala. After interviewing all the candidates whose names were sponsored, the 4th respondent was selected for appointment. The petitioner is challenging the same on the ground that going by the registration seniority with the Employment Exchange the petitioner should have been preferred since the 4th respondent was registered with the Employment Exchange only in 2003, whereas the petitioner was registered on 24.07.1990. The petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs: “a) issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records leading to Ext.P5 and to quash the original of the same. b) issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to Ext.P2 and to quash the original of the same to the extent it relates to the 4th respondent. c) declare that the petitioner is entitled to get appointment W.P.(C)No.2362 of 2006 -2- to the post of Pat time sweeper earmarked for Nadar community, in preference to the 4th respondent, since he is having superior claim over the 4th respondent.” 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent wherein it is stated that the 4th respondent was registered with the Employment Exchange on 24.9.1984 and his date of birth is 25.6.1965, whereas corresponding dates of the petitioner are 24.7.1990 and 10.3.1973 respectively. After interview, the petitioner got 10 marks for Employment Registration seniority, 5 marks for educational qualifications, 5 marks for age, 7 ½ marks for interview and a total of 27 ½ marks. The 4th respondent got 10 marks for Employment Registration seniority, 5 marks for educational qualifications, 7 marks for age, 7 marks for interview and a total of 29 marks. Since the 4th respondent got total higher marks than the petitioner, the 4th respondent was selected in preference to the petitioner, is the contention raised. The petitioner has not chosen to file any reply affidavit. 3. I have heard the parties. W.P.(C)No.2362 of 2006 -3- The petitioner could not with any satisfactory material controvert the averments in the counter affidavit of the 1st respondent. If that be so, there is absolutely nothing wrong in the selection process insofar as the 4th respondent has been selected on the basis of superior merit. The petitioner could not bring out any infirmity in the selection process also. As such, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. Sd/- S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE //True copy// P.A. TO JUDGE shg/