IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 20TH JULY 2009 / 29TH ASHADHA 1931 WA.No. 1559 of 2009() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.9388/2009 Dated 19/06/2009 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------ SARI, W/O. RAJAGOPALAN, AGED 39 YEARS, AIKKARA HOUSE, BEHIND PWD REST HOUSE, KATTOOR ROAD, IRINJALAKUDA. BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR SMT.P.A.ANITHA RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS ------------------------- 1. SREE KOODALMANIKYAM DEVASWOM, REP.BY ADMINISTRATION, O/O. SREE KOODALMANIKYAM DEVASWOM, IRINJALAKUDA. 2. STATE, REP. BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF DEVASWOM, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REP.BY SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVT.PLEADER, SMT.R.BINDU FOR R2 SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS FOR R3 SRI.SUJIN FOR R1 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ------------------------------ W.A.No.1559 OF 2009 ------------------------------ Dated this, the 20th day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. The appellant was an applicant for the post of Lower Division Clerk, when applications were invited for the same by the 1st respondent Devaswom. Ext.P1 is the notification issued by the 1st respondent on 29.6.2007 for appointment to the said post. She submitted Ext.P2 application. Later, she came to know that the 1st respondent has decided to leave the recruitment to the PSC for administrative posts under the Devaswom like the L.D.Clerk. Feeling aggrieved by Ext.P3, the Writ Petition was filed. The learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition . The learned Judge took the view that no valid ground has been raised to sustain the challenge against Ext.P3. The learned Judge also observed that till the recruitment is made through the PSC, the Managing Committee of the 1st respondent Devaswom can make temporary appointments in exigencies of service. The appellant also submitted that taking cue from that observation, now the 1st respondent has taken steps, as evident from Annexure-A1, produced along with the Writ Appeal, to make temporary appointments to various posts including that of Clerk. W.A.No.1559/2009 :-2-: The writ petitioner submits, Ext.P3 is liable to be quashed and the 1st respondent may be directed to proceed with the selection as per Ext.P1 notification. 2. It is for the 1st respondent to decide how the posts under it should be filled up. Apparently, to avoid unnecessary allegations, the 1st respondent decided to leave the recruitment to PSC. A candidate like the appellant has no locus standi to challenge that decision. Nobody's rights are affected by that decision. We find nothing wrong with the decision of the Devaswom to make temporary appointments, pending recruitment by the PSC. If the appellant is interested, she can also apply. For the reason that she has applied pursuant to Ext.P1, she cannot claim any right to complain about Annexure-A1. In the result, the Writ Appeal fails and it is dismissed. (K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) ps