NARAYANAN U.K. v. STATE OF KERALA

BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.VIJU THOMAS BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-12-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 28769 of 2012 (U) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXHIBIT-P1- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. A1-2700/99 DATED 13/07/1999 ISSUED by the DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH. EXHIBIT-P2-TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE NO.D. 11(6) 1739/99(7) DATED 20/03/2000 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT-P3-TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION DATED 23/03/2000. EXHIBIT-P4-TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 2 (6) 1739/99 DATED 18/05/2000 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT-P5-TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. A1-2700/99 DATED 26/06/2000 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT-P6-TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. A1 4747/2007 DATED 13/07/2007 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT EXHIBIT-P7-TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 24/11/2009 IN W.A 2575/2009 EXHIBIT-P8-TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 05/11/2007 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE MINISTERS RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(c) No. 28769 OF 2012 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 3rd day of December , 2012 JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging Exts.P4 and P5 proceedings, whereby the advice given by the PSC in favour of the petitioner for appointment as Last Grade Servant in the Panchayat Subordinate Service came to be withdrawn, as a result of which, the petitioner came to be ousted from the service.

2. The factual position as narrated in the writ petition shows that, the petitioner, in response to the notification dated 1.10.1996, applied for the post in question from Kozhikode district and on finalising the process of selection, he was included in the selection list. Later, he came to be advised to the post and accordingly the petitioner commenced his service in Kozhikode district. In the due course, it was brought to the notice of the concerned authorities, that the petitioner had also applied for a similar post in Kannur district as well and he was in fact selected and called for the interview. On confronting with the W.P.(C)No.28769/2012 2 factual position as per Ext.P2 show cause notice, the petitioner sought to explain the position as per Ext.P3 representation dated 23/03/2000 pointing out that, though the petitioner was called for interview in Kannur district, he did not attend the interview and that he came to know about his inclusion in the list only recently and requested not to cancel his appointment. As the explanation was not satisfactory, the third respondent passed Ext.P4 order dated 18.05.2000 cancelling the appointment given to the petitioner, based on which, the fourth respondent issued the consequential order, as borne by Ext.P5 order dated 26/06/2000. The petitioner is challenging Exts.P4 and P5 before this Court.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length, who submits that the petitioner had questioned the course and proceedings by filing necessary proceedings before the fourth respondent. Pursuant to Ext.P6 intimation given on 13/07/2007, though the petitioner appeared before the concerned authority, the matter is still to be finalised and hence before this Court.

4. The learned Standing Counsel for the PSC submits that, the petitioner has approached this Court with a stale cause of action and W.P.(C)No.28769/2012 3 further that there is absolutely no merit as well. It was specifically made clear in the notification itself, that no candidature of any candidate would be entertained, if he/she applies for selection in two different districts and that the application had to be confined to the selection for the post in any particular district. Admittedly, the petitioner applied for two different districts, namely Kozhikode and Kannur and came to be included in the rank list. The petitioner was given appointment in Kozhikode district and the adverse circumstance in respect of the application and selection in respect of the Kannur district came to the notice of the concerned authorities much later, leading to Ext.P3, P4 and P5 proceedings. The learned standing counsel further submits that, by virtue of the specific terms of the notification and also the binding judicial precedents on this point, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

5. Admittedly, the impugned proceedings, which are under challenge by way of Exts.P4 and P5 are dated 18/5/2000 and 26/06/2000 respectively. Pendency of the proceedings, if at all any, pursuant to Ext.P6 dated 13.07.2007 cannot be an enabling ground for the petitioner to sustain the challenge. That apart, Ext.P6 itself reveals W.P.(C)No.28769/2012 4 that the petitioner submitted the application in Peoples' Common Programme, which was the basis for issuance of Ext.P6, that too, on

1.6.2007 i.e. seven years after passing Exts.P4 and P5. The petitioner took another 'five' years to approach this Court, after issuance of Ext.P6, stating that the matter is still to be finalised. This Court finds that the petitioner does not have any subsisting cause of action, which can be entertained by this Court by way of this writ petition. Apart from the absence of merits, it also remains a fact that the petitioner was simply sleeping on an 'arm chair' without any regard to his grievance, which cannot be redressed now by this Court, invoking the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This Court finds support from the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Rabindra Nath Bose and others v. Union of India and others (AIR 1970 SC 470). Interference is declined and the writ petition is dismissed. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE sv. W.P.(C)No.28769/2012 5 W.P.(C)No.28769/2012 6