IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 3RD FEBRUARY 2011 / 14TH MAGHA 1932 WA.No. 1900 of 2010 ----------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.32751/2009 DATED 17.6.2010 .................... APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS ----------------------------- 1. KALADHARAN, S/O.P.A.KITTA, PUTHILATH HOUSE, VAZHUVACODE, PATTANCHERRY P.O., CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. PUSHPALATHA.K.N, W/O.RAMANKUTTY, PONNETH HOUSE, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD. 3. PAZHANIKUTTY, S/O.MAYAN, CHANDANAPURAM, CHITTUR P.O., PALAKKAD. 4. P.P.RUGMINI, W/O.PADMANABHAN, PAZHAYA PISHARAM, KARKAIDAMKUNNU P.O., ALANALLUR VIA. 5. V.SASIKALA, W/O.K.RAJARATNAM, AYYAPPA LINES, THEKKEPARAMBU, PUTHUPARIYARAM P.O., PALAKKAD. 6. R.PRASANNAKUMARI, D/O.RAMAN, ELAYAPURACKAL, THAMARAKULAM, VADAKKANTHARA P.O., PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.VENKETESH RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS) ---------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. W.A.No.1900 of 2010 - 2 - 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD. 3. CHIEF EMPLOYMENT OFFICER, DISTRICT EMPLOYMENT OFFICE, PALAKKAD. BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BENNY GERVACIS THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J. ------------------------------------------ W.A. No. 1900 of 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2011 JUDGMENT Ramachandra Menon, J. The appellants are the unsuccessful writ petitioners who approached this Court seeking to set aside Ext.P3 select list and also to declare that the selection process for appointment from among persons registered in the Employment Exchange should be on the basis of their seniority of registration in the Employment Exchange. 2. The appellants are stated as having registered with the Employment Exchange, Palakkad and Ext.P1 is a copy of the registration card issued to one of them. By virtue of their registration, in connection with the process of selection to the post of Part Time Menials, call letters were issued to the appellants as borne by Ext.P2. The requisite number of candidates were sponsored by the Employment Exchange, based on which the selection was conducted by the requisitioning authority and Ext.P3 select list of 41 persons was published; whereby the appellants/petitioners happened to be left out which made them to approach this Court by filing the writ petition. 3. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that Ext.P3 W.A. No.1900 of 2010 - 2 - select list has been prepared in an unscientific manner without any regard to the seniority in the matter of registration in the Employment Exchange which ought not to have been pursued as a basis in the process of selection and appointment by the governmental authorities . It is also stated that by virtue of the course adopted by the concerned respondents the appellants who happened to be seniors in the matter of registration in the Employment Exchange have been left out while their juniors have been given appointment. 4. The contention of the appellants/petitioners was considered by the learned Single Judge and interference was declined, holding that no vested right under any specific provision of law has been pointed out in support of their contention, which in turn is the subject matter of challenge in this writ appeal. 5. Going by the nature of the contentions, it is to be primarily noted that the appellants who were seeking to quash Ext.P3 select list have not chosen to implead the parties who have been selected as per in Ext.P3 and the proceedings are to fail on this score alone. 6. With regard to the merit of the contentions, there is nothing wrong on the part of the requisitioning authority in having subjected the credentials of the persons sponsored from the W.A. No.1900 of 2010 - 3 - Employment Exchange to scrutiny before appointing the eligible persons. None of the grounds raised in support of the writ petition as well as the writ appeal does serve any purpose. The writ appeal is dismissed accordingly. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Judge vns