IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 6TH DECEMBER 2010 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 502 of 2005(I) ----------------------- PETITIONER : -------------------- T.RADHAKRISHNAN, OVERSEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, K.S.E.BOARD, PUTHENCHANTHA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1. BY ADVS. SRI.N.SUGATHAN SMT.R.SEEMA SMT.VARSHA BHASKAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (H.R.M.), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. J.PRADEEP KUMAR, METER READER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, K.S.E.BOARD, PUTHENCHANTHA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1. 4. V.G.GOPAKUMAR, METER READER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, K.S.E.BOARD, PEROORKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB R3 BY ADV. SRI.KRB.KAIMAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 502 of 2005(I) -2- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF ORDER DATED 23-1-1981 WITH THE ANNEXURE RELATING TO 1ST GRADE OVERSEERS. EXT.P2 : COPY OF CIRCULAR NO. EB4-120(C)/1999 DATED 9-9-1999. EXT.P3 : COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 1-1-2002 IN O.P NO. 21479/2000. EXT.P4 : COPY OF ORDER NO. EB4-120(C)/1999 DATED 7-2-2003. EXT.P5 : COPY OF ORDER DATED 29-8-2000 AND PAGES 1, 5, 6, 23, 24 & 37 OF THE LONG TERM SETTLEMENT. EXT.P6 : COPY OF LETTER DATED 26-5-2003 ISSUED BY THE BOARD. EXT.P7 : COPY OF THE SENIORITY LIST OF METER READERS ISSUED BY THE BOARD. EXT.P8 : COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 1-12-2004 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P9 : COPY OF SENIORITY LIST OF OVERSEERS (ELE) FOR PROMOTION AS SUB ENGINEERS ISSUED BY BOARD. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS - NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Mn S. SIRI JAGAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No.502 of 2005 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 6th day of December, 2010 J U D G M E N T The counsel for the petitioner submits that, despite intimation given to the party the petitioner has not turned up for curing the defects. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE shg/