IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 2ND SEPTEMBER 2008 / 11TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 20431 of 2008(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ C.K. MAMMUKOYA, CHOOTHAMKULANGARA HOUSE, PERUVAYAL.P.O, KUNNAMANGALAM, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.CIBI THOMAS RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE. 4. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, KOZHIKODE. 5. P.K. KRISHNAN, PONDEDATH HOUSE, CHATHAMANGALAM, KOZHIKODE. 6. THE DIRECTOR OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, TRIVANDRUM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. I.V. PRAMOD. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 20431 of 2008 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 2nd September, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is an aspirant for selection as an ARD. However, the 5th respondent has been selected in preference to the petitioner. The petitioner's appeal and revision in this matter have been rejected. The petitioner is challenging the original, appellate and revisional orders in this writ petition. The petitioner submits that the reasons stated for rejecting his candidature is unsustainable. 2. From the order in question, I find that the petitioner's application has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner is not a resident of the area where the ARD is located. In view of the fact that the question of residence is in dispute, in order to ascertain whether the petitioner is the resident of the locality where the ARD is located, which is the criterion as laid down by the Full Bench of this Court, I had directed the petitioner to produce the original notification inviting application which has been produced as Ext. P5. From the same, I find that the applications were invited for an ARD at Ward No. 16 of the Chathamangalam Panchayat. Therefore, the petitioner should be a resident of the Chathamangalam Panchayat. Admittedly, the petitioner is not the resident of Chathamagalam Panchayat. That being so, the petitioner is not clearly eligible to be considered for an ARD pursuant to the notification. Therefore, there is no merit in the writ petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [True copy] P.S to Judge. W.P.C. No. -: 2 :-