The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order inviting applications from open merit candidates for the post of LMV Driver. The court held that the petitioner, who had failed to apply for the notification, could not be considered for the post.
The writ petition is dismissed with no costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH 2016/20TH PHALGUNA, 1937
WP(C).No. 1092 of 2006 (E)
PETITIONER:
S.UNNIKRISHNAN PILLAI, KAZHAKOM, MARTHANDAPURAM DEVASWOM, KOLLAM GROUP TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD.
BY ADVS.SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI SRI.RAHUL VENUGOPAL SMT.S.SIBHA
RESPONDENTS:
1. THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY OFFICE OF THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2. THE SECRETARY, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADVS. SRI.C.VIJAYAN, SC, TDB
SRI.D.SREEKUMAR, SC, TDB SRI.P.G.PARAMESWARA PANICKER (SR.) SRI.P.GOPAL
SRI.G.BIJU,SC,TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD SRI.A.N.RAJAN BABU, SC, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10-03-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 1092 of 2006 (E)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :-
| EXT.P1 | - | COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13.08.2004 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. |
|---|---|---|
| EXT.P2 | - | COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 02.08.2005 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. |
| EXT.P3 | - | COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.27739/2005 DATED 28.09.2005 BEFORE THIS COURT. |
| EXT.P4 | - | COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.11.2005 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. |
| EXT.P5 | - | COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 11.06.2001. |
| EXT.P6 | - | COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 08.07.2005. |
| EXT.P7 | - | COPY OF THE SERVICE BOOK OF THE PETITIONER. |
| RESPONDEN ------------------ |
TS' E --------- |
XHIBITS:- ------------ |
| EXT.R1(A) | - | COPY OF THE CIRCULAR VIDE R.O.C. 10597/2001/ESTT. DATED 11.06.2001 ISSUED BY THE DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER. |
| EXT.R1(B) | - | COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS VIDE R.O.C. NO.10924/98/EST.1 DATED 28.10.2002 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. |
| EXT.R1(C) | - | COPY OF THE RANK LIST OF CANDIDATES PREPARED AND PUBLISHED DATED 22.10.2002 PURSUANT TO EXHIBIT R1(A). |
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
sp
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
----------------------------------
W.P(C). No.1092 of 2006-E
---------------------------------Dated this the 10th day of March, 2016
JUDGMENT
The petitioner challenges Ext.P4 order of the respondent Board. Ext.P4 order was passed in pursuance to the direction in Ext.P3, based on the proceedings of the Board dated 13.08.2004 referred to as item No.3 in Ext.P4. The petitioner's claim was on the basis of a rank-list issued as Ext.R1(c). The Board had at that point of time decided to call for applications from low-paid employees to the
post of LMV Driver.
W.P(C). No.1092 of 2006-E
2
one of the Temples, applied for the post. The petitioner was placed 8th in the rank-list produced at Ext.R1(b). The rank-list had a period of validity of one year from 22.10.2002. Before the list expired, no vacancy arose to accommodate the petitioner. The petitioner then made a submission before the Commissioner, in which the Board had decided that when next applications are invited, the petitioner would also be considered.
year 2005 from the open merit candidates. The petitioner failed to apply under the notification. Hence, despite the earlier Board proceedings, the petitioner's candidature could not be considered, for reason of there being no application at all.
W.P(C). No.1092 of 2006-E
3
This Court does not find any reason to
interfere with Ext.P4 and hence the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE.
//True Copy// P.A. to Judge.
sp/10/03/16
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the order of the respondent Board inviting applications from open merit candidates.
Whether the petitioner's candidature should be considered despite the Board's earlier decision to consider him when applications were invited.
S.UNNIKRISHNAN PILLAI
THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD
THE SECRETARY, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
K. VINOD CHANDRAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
