IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2009 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 20693 of 2004(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------- SREENISHA P.V. (LICENCE OF ARD 48), ARAYAMKARA HOUSE, KODAKKAD P.O., VIA. CHETTIPPADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.J.MATHEW SRI.THOMAS JOHN AMBOOKEN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, MALAPPURAM. 4. THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, THIRURANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.I.V.PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.20693/04 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT NIL OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TIRUR TALUK ARECANUT CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING SOCIETY TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: PHOTOCOPY OF A PAGE OF THE REGISTER OF THE SOCIETY SHOWING THE NAME AND NATURE OF APPOINTMENT. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DT 9.5.2001. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 25.6.2002. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER WRITTEN BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE MANAGER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, TIRURANGADI DT 6.3.2003. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE PUBLISHED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DT 7.6.2004. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED NIL. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 9.7.2004. EXTS. OF R3 EXT.R3(a): TRUE COPY OF THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION NO.7928/B1/94/F&CSD DTD.14.5.96. EXT.R3(b): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT 20.12.2001 SUBMITTED BY THE SECRETARY, THE TIRUR ARECANUT CO-OP. MARKETING SOCIETY. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 20693 OF 2004 (L) ===================== Dated this the 9th day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P6, an advertisement issued by the respondents for making permanent appointment of ARD 48 of Nannambra Panchayath in Tirurangadi Taluk. 2. Petitioner submits that 14 ARD licences were held by the Tirur Taluk Arecanut Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd. According to the petitioner, in ARD 48, she was appointed as Sales Girl w.e.f. 10/8/2001. She is referring to Exts.P1 and P2 in support of this contention. Subsequently, the society surrendered all licences and the Government issued Ext.P3 accepting surrender and appointing the salesman of the shop concerned as licencees. It is stated that accordingly appointment was made in respect of the shop, ARD No.48. However, when the appointee left for abroad, by Ext.P4, petitioner was appointed on a temporary basis for a period of 6 months. According to the petitioner, all others were appointed on a regular basis and therefore, there was no reason to have taken a different stand in WPC 20693/04 :2 : so far as she alone is concerned. Subsequent to her appointment, the respondents issued Ext.P6 inviting applications for permanent appointment and reserving the shop in question for physically handicapped candidates. Complaining of Ext.P6, petitioner filed Exts.P7 and P8 before respondents 3 and 2 respectively. The representations did not yield any result and therefore the writ petition is filed. 3. Three objections are mainly raised by the learned Government Pleader. One is that in terms of the circular No.10/83, petitioner is an ineligible candidate. Circular provides that both husband and wife should not be appointed and if one spouse is already running a depot, the other should not be appointed if there are eligible hands. When the learned Government Pleader pointed out this aspect, the petitioner confirms that her husband is already holding a ARD licence. If that be so, going by the terms of the circular, petitioner is ineligible. However, petitioner contends that in terms of the provisions contained under the Kerala Rationing Order, a sales girl like her is eligible for preference. However, such preference can only be subject to the circular referred to above and therefore, I must accept the contention of the learned Government Pleader WPC 20693/04 :3 : that the petitioner is an ineligible candidate. 4. The other objection raised by the learned Government Pleader is that the shop in question has been reserved for physically handicapped candidates. Going by the Rules, 20% of the shops are liable to be reserved. If that be so, it is for the respondents to decide which shop is to be reserved. For that reason also, a candidate like the petitioner cannot claim entitlement. 5. Yet another doubtful circumstances pointed out by the learned Government Pleader is by placing reliance on Ext.R3(b) certificate issued by the Secretary of the Society, which claims to have appointed the petitioner. Ext.R3(b) shows that in the shop in question, the salesman appointed is some other person. Now that on the aforesaid two points, I have already held the petitioner to be an ineligible candidate, I do not think a resolution of the factual controversy is necessary for the disposal of this writ petition. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition fails and is only to be dismissed and I do so. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp