IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN FRIDAY, THE 19TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 30TH MAGHA 1931 WA.No. 243 of 2010() --------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.35373/2008 Dated 13/10/2009 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------ K.P.JOYSON, AGED 40, S/O. POULOSE, THALAKKETTUKARA PO, CHOONDAL PATHAYA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. KOONAMMOOCHI PEOPLES SERVICE CO-OP.BANK LTD.C.NO.603,P.O.KOONAMMOOCHI,THRISSUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. P.SUJA, MELEPPATTU HOUSE, KATTUKAMBAL, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. C.D.VASUDEVAN, KANHIRAKKATTU ILLOM, CHOONDAL, THRISSUR DISTRICT. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan & P.S.Gopinathan, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.A.243/2010,I.A.129/2010 & C.M.Appl.115/2010 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 19th day of February, 2010. Judgment Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. The appellant competed in a selection for appointment to the service of the first respondent. The selection was sometime in February-March, 2004. He filed the writ petition from which this appeal arises, in November, 2008 seeking to set aside the selection of respondents 2 and 3 as Peons. The learned single Judge has dismissed that writ petition solely on the ground of delay. The learned Judge held that since the appointments challenged by the petitioner were made as early as on 3.3.2004, more than five years ago, there is no satisfactory explanation for the long delay in challenging the same. The petitioner-appellant avers that he had been meeting the different Members of the Board of WA243/10 -: 2 :- Directors of the first respondent and also making enquiries in the office of the first respondent as to whether the result was published etc. We are not impressed with that, to reverse the discretion exercised by the learned Judge in refusing to entertain a writ petition on the ground that the plea is belated. Obviously, as rightly pointed out by the appellant's counsel, the said judgment is one rendered only on the ground of delay and could not necessarily preclude the appellant from claiming any other relief that may be available to him in accordance with law from other jurisdictions. We do not find any merit in this writ appeal. As a consequence, the writ appeal, the interlocutory application and the civil miscellaneous application to condone delay are dismissed. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan,Judge. P.S.Gopinathan,Judge. Sha/2002