IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 6TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 15TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 24295 of 2011(J) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- PRETHEEP A.V, HANUMANTHVILASOM, NEDUMAN, KALLAYAM PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 043. BY ADVS. SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN SMT.RESMI G. NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN 695 001. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE POLICE HEAD QUARTERS,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (TELECOMMUNICATIONS), KERALA POLICE, PATTOM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN 695 004. 4. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 004, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 5. SRI.SIJO JOSE, PCH 1279, POLICE CONSTABLE TELECOMMUNICATIONS, THRISSUR TELECOMMUNICATIONS, SUB UNIT, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR PIN 680 609. R1 TO R3 BY BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.A.J.VARGHESE R4 BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC., P.S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs W.P.(C). NO. 24295/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 12/06/2001 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. P2: COPY OF RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE RANK LIST PUBLISHED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 22/09/2003. P3: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT DATED 05/03/2009 IN WPC. NO.5188/2009. P4: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 12/01/2011 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. ---------------------------- W.P.(C)No.24295 of 2011 ---------------------------- Dated 6th September, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner was an applicant for appointment to the post of Police Constable (Telecommunications) pursuant to Ext.P1 notification issued by the Kerala Public Service Commission. Pursuant to the said notification Ext.P2 rank list was drawn and published by the Public Service Commission on 22.9.2003 and, admittedly, its validity expired as early as in 2006. The contention of the petitioner is that 117 unqualified persons, including the 5th respondent herein, were included in Ext.P2 ranked list. However, the petitioner has not given the details regarding the candidates who got advice and appointments. It is without giving such details and without making them parties to this writ petition that after long lapse of time the petitioner has come up with this writ petition claiming that such unqualified persons should be ousted from service and against one of the resultant vacancies he should be advised and appointed. I do not propose to consider the said contentions, on merits, for the reason that the petitioner is accused of delay and laches. Admittedly, Ext.P2 rank list expired as early as on 21.9.2006. The petitioner has filed this writ petition after about five years since the expiry of Ext.P2 rank list. Evidently, candidates from WP(C).No.24295/2011 2 the said list got appointments years ago. I am of the view that this is a fit case wherein the doctrine of limitation should be applied as the petitioner is accused of delay and laches and the delay is not properly explained. In the said circumstances, I do not find any reason to entertain this writ petition. There is no merit in this writ petition and accordingly, it is dismissed. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS