IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WA.No. 558 of 2008() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.2534/2008 Dated 24/01/2008 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER NO.1: ---------------------------------------------------- K.PRADEEP, LEPROSY INSPECTOR, GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL, NADAPURAM, P.O.NADAPURAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS 2 & 3 AND RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. T.MANOJ, U.D.CLERK, DISTRICT POLICE OFFICE, KANNUR. (S/O.KORAN, AGEDL 41, CHALADAN, MANAPPURAM HOUSE, P.O.PALAYAD, THALASSERRY) 2. A.PRAVEEN, POLICE CONSTABLE, P.C.4371, DHARMADAM POLICE STATION (S/O.ACHUTHAN, AGED 39, GURUKKALEDATH HOUSE, JUDGES BUNGALOW, THALASSERY). 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY LAW SECRETARY, LAW ADMINISTRATION II DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICE, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, KOZHIKODE. 6. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 7. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KANNUR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.SANDESH RAJA FOR R3 TO 7 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss J.B.KOSHY & THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JJ. ================================ W.A.No.558 of 2008 =============================== Dated this the 26th day of November, 2008. J U D G M E N T KOSHY, J. Appellant was working as a Leprosy Inspector in Government Hospital, Nadapuram. Appellant is a law graduate. It is the case of the appellant that from a news item in Mathrubhumi Thozhil Vartha, a weekly, he came to know that examination for Legal Assistant from in-service candidate is being held on 27.1.2008. On enquiry it was found that as per Ext.P2 notification, law graduates in all Government Departments could apply for the same. He, along with three other law graduates working in various Government Departments approached this Court saying that Ext.P2 notification was not duly published, especially in the northern districts and therefore, direction should be issued to receive their applications. Their prayer was dismissed. Only the appellant has come up in an appeal. Other petitioners did not file any appeal. According to the Government, the notification was dated 20.12.2006. It was published in W.A.No.558 of 2008 2 Mathrubhumi daily on 23.12.2006 and it was also published in Government Website. More than 350 candidates applied for being appointed as Legal Assistants. Out of that, 250 were found eligible. It is also submitted that out of the 250, 90 candidates were from the northern districts. It is further submitted that out of the 250 applications, 13 applications were from the District Health Services and out of those 13 applications, 5 applications were from the northern districts. It is also submitted that written examination was conducted on 27.1.2008. Anticipated vacancy was 4 and 4 persons were already appointed on 1.3.2008. Learned counsel for the appellant produced copy of Kannur edition of the Mathrubhumi newspaper dated 23.12.2006 to show that advertisement was not published at Kannur on 23rd. Appellant is working in Calicut district but he did not produce Calicut edition of that newspaper. It is submitted that appellant is working in Nadapuram Government Hospital and Ext.A6 shows that the notification was not circulated in that office. It is submitted in the affidavit filed by the 5th respondent that notification was published in the notice board of the DMO, Kozhikode, which is not far away from Nadapuram, and that he W.A.No.558 of 2008 3 also circulated the same to the subordinate offices coming within the purview of his office. Learned counsel for the appellant relied on a decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Collector of Central Excise v. New Tobacco and Others (1998 (8) SCC 250) wherein it was held that unless the Gazette containing the notification is made available to the public, the notification cannot be said to have been duly published. But in this case, Gazette is published in the Government Website apart from Newspapers. Therefore, it cannot be stated that there was no publication of the notification. In these circumstances, we are of the view that notification was published, sufficient number of candidates applied and it is not a case that the notification was issued secretly. More than 50 times of the required candidates applied and therefore it cannot be said that there is no publication. We are not inclined to interfere in the impugned judgment. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. J.B.KOSHY, JUDGE THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE bkn/-