IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2010 / 14TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 19833 of 2010(D) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, KERALA STATE RUBBER BOARD WATCHERS UNION (UTUDC) DISTRICT COMMITTEE, PATHANAMTHITTA, REP. BY C.N.KRISHNA PILLAI. 2. D.SANTHOSHKUMAR, S/O. K.DIVAKARAN,TAPPER (RUBBER), RUBBER RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF INDIA, RUBBER BOARD, CENTRAL EXPERIMENT STATION, CHETHACKAL RESIDING AT KUNNATHUMANNIL THOMPIKANDAM.P.O., EDAMURI, RANNI,PATHANAMTHITTA. 3. SUNIL KUMAR, S/O. K.K.BALACHANDRAN, GENERAL WORKER, RUBBER REASERACH INSITUTUE OF INDIA, RUBBER BOARD, CENTRAL EXPERIMENT STATION, CHETHACKAL RESIDING AT KOYPURATH VEEDU, MAKKAPUZHA.P.O., RANNI. 4. K.PONNAMMA, W/O. ANANDAN, GENERAL WORKER, ROLL NO. 309, RUBBER RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF INDIA, RUBBER BOARD, CENTRAL EXPERIMENT STATION, CHETHACKAL. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.S.SHARAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LABOUR & REHABILATATION (A) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. WP(C).No. 19833 of 2010 2. THE PLANTATION LABOUR COMMITTEE, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, THE LABOUR COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (RS), CENTRAL EXPERIMENTAL STATION, CHETHAKKAL, THAMPIKANDOM.P.O., RANNI. 4. DEPUTY SECRETARY(ADMN.) THE RUBBER RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF INDIA, RUBBER BOARD.P.O., KOTTAYAM. 5. T.K.SANTHA, GENERAL WORKER, ROLL NO.326 RUBBER RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF INDIA, RUBBER BOARD, CENTRAL EXPERIMENT STATION, CHETHACKAL – 689 677. 6. K.SAROJINI, GENERAL WORKER, ROLL NO. 351 RUBBER RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF INDIA, RUBBER BOARD, CENTRAL EXPERIMENT STATION, CHETHACKAL – 689 677. 7. E.N.RADHAMANI, GENERAL WORKER, ROLL NO. 337, RUBBER RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF INDIA, RUBBER BOARD, CENTRAL EXPERIMENT STATION, CHETHACKAL – 689 677. 8. V.P.AMMINI, GENERAL WORKER,ROLL NO. 349, RUBBER RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF INDIA, RUBBER BOARD, CENTRAL EXPERIMENT STATION, CHETHACKAL – 689 677. 9. K.K.VILASINI, GENERAL WORKER, ROLL NO. 360, RUBBER RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF INDIA, RUBBER BOARD, CENTRAL EXPERIMENT STATION, CHETHACKAL – 689 677. STANDING COUNSEL MR.MATHEWS K. UTHUPPACHAN FOR RUBBER BOARD ADVS. SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS FOR R3 & 4 SRI.TERRY V.JAMES FOR R3 & 4 SRI.B.J.JOHN PRAKASH FOR R3 & 4 SRI.TOM THOMAS (KAKKUZHIYIL) FOR R3 & 4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: jvt ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C) No.19833 of 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 5th day of August 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioners claim to be Watchers working at the Central Experiment Station of the Rubber Board. According to the petitioners, as per Ext.P3 select list, respondents 6 to 9, who are juniors to them, have been selected for the post of Cup Lump Collection workers. It is challenging Ext.P3, the writ petition is filed. 2. A statement has been filed on behalf of respondents 3 and 4. It is stated that by Ext.R3(a) notice, applications were invited from the employees on 23.4.2009. It is also stated that Ext.R3(a) notice was published in the notice board and that in response to the notice, 9 applications were received. The applicants were called for an interview by Ext.R3(b) and in conclusion of the selection process, Ext.P3 list was published. It is stated that in response to Ext.R3(a) W.P.(C) No.19833 of 2010 -: 2 :- notice petitioners 2 to 4 did not make any application and it was therefore they were not considered. 3. While the learned counsel for the petitioners admitted that petitioners did not make any application in response to the Ext.R3(a) notice, he contended that Ext.R3(a) was not published in the notice board in order to enable them to submit applications. However, a perusal of the notice itself show that it was published in the notice board and in response to that notice, atleast 9 applications were made. Thus the justification of the petitioners for not submitting applications is not acceptable. 4. Once notice was published, if applications were not made by the petitioners, the respondents cannot be faulted for not considering the candidature of the petitioners for inclusion in the select list. Writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE. Jvt