IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2010 / 4TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 19808 of 2010(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- BINCY GEORGE, D/O.V.J.GEORGE, VADAKKADATH HOUSE, PARATHODE - IDUKKI P.O., IDUKKI - 686 571. BY ADV. SRI.LIJU. M.P RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF SPORTS, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION (SERVICE-D) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 3. THE SECRETARY, SPORTS COUNCIL OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM GOVT.PLEADER SRI.ARAVINDKUMAR BABU SRI.P.V.S.SUDHIR, SC FOR SPORTS COUNCIL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 19808 OF 2010 (A) ===================== Dated this the 25th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner claims to be a sports person. Ext.P1 series are the certificates produced to support her case. The complaint is that though vacancies are available for appointment of outstanding sports persons, appointment has been denied to her while persons who are inferior to her have been given appointments. 2. It is seen from Ext.P3 that in response to a notification issued for appointment of sports person, petitioner also had offered her candidature, and from Ext.P4 reply, it would appear that in the ranked list that was prepared, petitioner was included as No.2 in the supplementary list. It is stated that against an NJD vacancy, the first candidate in the supplementary list was appointed and it was therefore that the petitioner could not be appointed. 3. There is nothing to infer that the facts stated in Ext.P4 are incorrect. If that be so, the denial of appointment pursuant to the selection held, to which the petitioner was also a candidate, cannot be faulted. WPC No. 19808/10 :2 : 4. Referring to Ext.P5, petitioner contends that less meritorious persons have been appointed. First of all, in this writ petition, there is no challenge against the appointment of those persons nor has the petitioner impleaded those persons. In such a situation, the illegality or otherwise of the appointments given to the persons mentioned in Ext.P5 cannot be gone into in this writ petition. Further the fact that less meritorious persons have been appointed is not a reason for this Court to direct that the respondents should offer appointment to the petitioner bypassing the method prescribed for appointment. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp