IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 17TH MAY 2010 / 27TH VAISAKHA 1932 WA.No. 757 of 2010 -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.4043/2010 Dated 22/02/2010 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: --------------------------- V.K.AFSAL, S/O.KOYAN, AGED 35 YEARS RESIDING AT VALANGOTTIL,PAZHAMTHOTTAM PO PAZHAMTHOTTAM, KUNNATHUNAD TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.PAVITHRAN SRI.M.VIVEK RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER ERNAKULAM. 2. THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER KUNNATHUNAD TALUK, PERUMBAVOOR. BY SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER, SMT. K. MEERA THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.Chelameswar, CJ. & P.N.Ravindran, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A.No. 757 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 17th day of May, 2010 JUDGMENT Ravindran, J. The appellant is the petitioner in WP(C) No.4043 of 2010. By judgment delivered on 22.02.2010, learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. The brief facts of the case are the following. 2. By Ext.P1 notification dated 30.01.2008, the District Supply Officer, Ernakulam invited applications from eligible persons for appointment as ARD No.55 in Aikkaranadu Panchayat. The appellant and others applied. He was selected and appointed by Ext.P2 order dated 26.06.2008. That order was challenged by another applicant which led to Ext.P3 order whereby, the appellate authority set aside the appellant's appointment and directed that the vacancy be re-notified. Though the appellant attempted a revision, the revision petition was rejected by the Commissioner of Civil Supplies. Thereafter, the appellant moved this Court by filing WP(C) WA No. 757 of 2010 -:2:- No.14642 of 2009. By Ext.P4 judgment delivered on 20.08.2009 the said writ petition was dismissed. The appellant was, however, permitted to continue as a temporary licencee until a new licencee is selected, subject to the undertaking that he shall forth with surrender his licence on intimation from the appropriate authority. Shortly thereafter pursuant to Ext.P3 order issued by the appellate authority, the District Supply Officer issued Ext.P5 notification dated 13.01.2010, whereby ARD No.55 of Aikkaranadu Panchayat was reserved for persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes. The present writ petition was thereupon filed challenging Exts.P3 and P5 and seeking a direction to the first respondent to re-notify ARD No.55 of Aikkaranadu Panchayat in the general category. The appellant contended that the re-notification of ARD No.55 of Aikkaranadu Panchayat as one reserved for the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes is arbitrary and illegal. 3. The official respondents resisted the writ petition by filing a statement wherein it was pointed out that there is a short fall in the number of ARDs reserved for the Scheduled WA No. 757 of 2010 -:3:- Castes/Scheduled Tribes and Physically handicaped persons. It was stated that as against the permissible number of 134 ARDs reserved for persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes, there are only 9 ARDs in Ernakulam District and therefore in oder to fill up the vacancies reserved for the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes, the present notification was issued. The learned single Judge accepted the stand taken by the respondents and dismissed the writ petition. Hence this Writ Appeal. 4. We heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. We have also gone through the pleadings and the materials on record and also Clause 45(2)(a) of the Kerala Rationing Order, 1966. The appellant does not dispute the fact that under the aforesaid provision, which is not under challenge in the writ petition, the Government have prescribed that 10% of the ARDs in the revenue district should be reserved for the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes. The appellant also does not dispute the fact that there is a deficiency in the number of ARDs run by persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled WA No. 757 of 2010 -:4:- Tribes in Ernakulam district. In such circumstances, the action of the respondents in taking the decision to re-notify ARD No.55 of Aikkaranadu Panchayat after reserving it for persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes, cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal. We therefore find no merit in the challenge made by the appellant to Ext.P5 notification or any ground to reverse the decision of the learned single Judge, which is under challenge in this Writ Appeal. The Writ Appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed in limine. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice. P.N.Ravindran, Judge. ttb WA No. 757 of 2010 -:5:-