IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH AUGUST 2008 / 29TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 13943 of 2006(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER: 1 ------------- BIJU JOSE, VETTUKATTIL, THABORE P.O.THALIPARAMBA, CHERAPPUZHA VIA, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.H.BADARUDDIN SRI.C.A.JOSEPH RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE RUBBER BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, SUB JAIL ROAD, KOTTAYAM 686 002. 2. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY (P&A), RUBBER BOARD, HEAD OFFICE, SUB JAIL ROAD, KOTTAYAM 686 002. BY ADV. SRI.JOSEPH KODIANTHARA FOR R1 SRI.MITHUN MARKOS FOR R1 ADV.JOSEPH MARKOS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J ------------------- W.P.(C).13943/2006 -------------------- Dated this the 20th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner, who was an applicant for appointment to the post of Staff car driver in the Rubber Board has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs:- (i). Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ order or direction directing the respondents to prepare and publish the rank list of the candidates for the post of staff car driver based on Ext.P2 written test and Ext.P3 Interview held with in a time limit fixed by the Honourable Court. (ii). Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the respondents to fill the post of staff car driver which was vacant from 11.6.2005 onwards from the rank list of eligible candidates prepared for the same based on Ext.P2 written test and Ext.P3 Interview held. W.P.(C).13943/2006 2 2. The petitioner contends that though a written test was held on 27.5.2005 followed by an interview on 3.8.2005, the ranked list has not been published and appointments have not been made. When the writ petition came up for admission today, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Rubber Board submitted that a ranked list was published in March, 2006 even before the writ petition was filed, that the petitioner was not included in the ranked list and that two persons ranked in the list were appointed even in the year 2006. The writ petition has therefore, become infructuous. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge mrcs