IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH APRIL 2009 / 25TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 12367 of 2009(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SAJITHA K.A. W/O. ISMAIL P.K., KALLINGAPARAMBIL HOUSE, VADAKKETHARA, PAZHAYANNUR PANCHAYAT, TALAPILLI TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.S.RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES & CONSUMER AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, COMMISSIONERATE OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR. 4. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, THRISSUR. 5. THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, THALAPPILLI. 6. V.IBRAHIMKUTTY, KUNDAMKULAM HOUSE, KALLEPPADOM P.O., PAZHAYANNUR, THALAPPILLI TALUK. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. T.T.MAHAMOOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO.12367 OF 2009 () ===================== Dated this the 15th day of April, 2009 J U D G M E N T The dispute in this writ petition is concerning the appointment of ARD.No.289 of Thalappilly Taluk. Petitioner states that, on conclusion of the selection process, by Ext.P1 order he was appointed as ARD.No.289. However, by Ext.P2, the appeal filed by the 6th respondent was allowed and fresh advertisement was ordered by the 3rd respondent. The revision filed by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent was rejected by Ext.P4 and the first respondent rejected the further revision by Ext.P5 order. 2. These orders were challenged before this court and in Ext.P6 judgment rendered in WP(c).No.377/08, this court directed reconsideration of the matter by the 4th respondent. It was also directed that, in the meanwhile, status quo shall be maintained in the selection. It is stated that the 4th respondent thereafter passed Ext.P7 order directing issuance of fresh advertisement and against that order petitioner has filed Ext.P8 appeal before the 3rd respondent which is pending. WPC.No.12367 /09 :2 : 3. In this writ petition what the petitioner seeks is a direction to the 3rd respondent to expeditiously dispose of Ext.P8 appeal with notice to the parties and further to direct that status quo be maintained in the meanwhile. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that following Ext.P1 order of appointment he has started the business and is continuing the same. In view of the above and taking into account the pendency of Ext.P8 appeal, the writ petition is disposed of as follows. 5. The 3rd respondent shall consider Ext.P8 with notice to the petitioner and the 6th respondent and orders thereon shall be passed as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 6 weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment . It is directed that in the meanwhile, status quo as on date in regard to ARD.No.289/ Thalappilli Taluk shall be maintained by the parties. Petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the 3rd respondent for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE vi