IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 13TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 22ND KARTHIKA 1930 W.P(C).No. 32572 of 2008(C) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- SAJI.T, HEAD OF SECTION (COMPUTER ENGINEERING), NOW WORKING AS PROJECT OFFICER, CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT CENTRE, KALAMASSERY. BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTYED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPARTMENTAL PROMOTION COMMITTEE (HIGHER) IN THE POST TECHNICAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT FOR PROMOTION TO THE POST OF HEAD OF SECTION, REP. BY ITS CONVENOR, PRINCIAPL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. A.A. ABDUL NAZAR, HEAD OF SECTION IN COMPUTER ENGINEERING, SREE RAMA GOVERNMENT POLYTECHNIC, THRIPRAYAR 5. BINDU.P.S, HEAD OF SECTION IN COMPUTER ENGINEERING, GOVERNMENT POLYTECHNIC, KALAMASSERY. BY GOVT. PLEADER, SRI. A.J. VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ============== W.P.(C) NO. 32572 OF 2008 (C) ==================== Dated this the 13th day of November, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is admittedly aggrieved by Ext.P9 select list that was published on 21/4/2003 in which respondents 4 and 5 were shown at Sl.No.1 and 2 and the petitioner at Sl.No.3. Against that select list, petitioner filed his objection dated 15/11/2003. That was rejected by Ext.P10 dated 27/12/2003. Based on Ext.P10, the Government also rejected his representation by Ext.P11 dated 10/2/2004. It is seeking review of Ext.P11 that the petitioner has filed Ext.P13 dated 5/10/2007 and is seeking a direction in this writ petition requiring the Government to pass orders on Ext.P13. 2. In my view, Ext.P13 is highly belated as it essentially seeks to review Ext.P9 select list of 21/4/2003. The explanation for the delay offered by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the materials on the basis of which Ext.P13 is filed were obtained by him only by Ext.P12 dated 13/4/2007. A reference of Ext.P12 shows that the application invoking the provisions of the Right to Information Act, was made by the petitioner only on 22/2/2007. Therefore, there is absolutely no explanation whatsoever for the delay that has occurred upto 22/2/2007. The answer to WPC 32572/08 :2 : this again is the Right to Information Act came into force only in 2005. That in my view is not an explanation at all as several means of disclosure of information known to law were in existence even prior to that. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of this Court in P.Devaki v. State of Kerala and others (2007(2) KLT S.N.73 Case No.97). Unlike in this case, in that case facts would show that the delay if at all was explained to the satisfaction of the Bench. Therefore, that judgment also does not assist the petitioner to get the inordinate and culpable delay that has occurred condoned. In my view, Ext.P13 is belated and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed for delay and laches and I do so. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp