IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2010 / 20TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 28183 of 2005(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- JOSHY K., AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.LATE K.BHASKARAN, PUTHUSSERY VEEDU, KADALUNDI P.O., KOZHIKODE-673 302, LAST GRADE SERVANT, LAKSHADWEEP DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB ABRAHAM SMT.KOCHUMOL KODUVATH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- LAKSHADWEEP DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM-682 036. ADV. SRI.SHAFIK M.ABDULKHADIR,SC,LAKSHADWEEP FOR R1 SRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,SC,LAKSHADWEEP ADMN FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/06/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1:- COPY OF CHEQUE DTD 1.11.99 ISSUED TO PETITIONER BY RESPONDENT EXT.P2:- COPY OF CHEQUE DTD.3.11.2000, ISSUED TO PETITIONER BY RESPONDENT. EXT.P3:- COPY OF CHEQUE DTD. 3.5.2001 ISSUED TO PETITIONER BY RESPONDENT EXT.P4:- COPY OF NOTICE DTD.3.8.2005 ISSUED TO RESPONDENT BY PETITIONER'S COUNSEL RESPONDENT'S EXTS: EXT.R1(a):- COPY OF REPLY NOTICE DTD.24.11.2005 / TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.28183 of 2005 (E) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 10th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner states that he was engaged by the respondent as a Last Grade Servant from 05/06/1999 to 09/05/2001. According to him, he has worked under the respondent prior to 1999 and in 2004 also. Petitioner states that, there are vacancies in which he could have been appointed, and that without appointing him, others were being appointed in similar posts. It is with this grievance, the writ petition was filed. 2. In the counter affidavit filed, the respondent has stated that they have no proposal to make any appointment as claimed by the petitioner. It is also stated that there is no vacancy available to regularise the petitioner. Although they accept the fact that occasionally the petitioner was engaged, they contend that the petitioner has no right to claim regular appointment in the respondent Corporation. The petitioner has no case that his appointment was on WP(C) No.28183/2005 -2- regular basis. There is also nothing to indicate that there is any vacancy available to appoint the petitioner. There is also nothing to show that the respondent is going on with appointments as alleged by the petitioner. In such circumstances, the petitioner has no right to claim that he should be appointed in the respondent Corporation. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg