Kerala High Court
Midhun A vs State Of Kerala on 12 April, 2024
Author: Sathish Ninan
Bench: Sathish Ninan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 23RD CHAITHRA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 27559 OF 2017
PETITIONER:
MIDHUN A.
AGED 24 YEARS, S/O. ASHOKA KUMAR. N, SHYLAJA BHAVAN,
GATEMUKKU, ALTHARAMOODU P.O., ALAMCODE (PART),
ALAMCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 102.
BY ADV SRI.M.SREEKUMAR
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVT., DEPARTMENT OF
CULTURAL AFFAIRS, GOVT. SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
2 MALAYALAM MISSION
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, T.C. 27/2311 (1),
ROHINI, ROBSTAN LANE, CONVENT ROAD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
3 DIRECTOR
MALAYALAM MISSION T.C. 27/2311 (1), ROHINI, ROBSTAN
LANE, CONVENT ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
4 REMYA RAJAN
ASSISTANT (CONTRACT), MALAYALAM MISSION T.C. 27/2311
(1), ROHINI, ROBSTAN LANE, CONVENT ROAD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN-SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Sathish Ninan, J.
==============================
W.P(C) No.27559 of 2017
==============================
Dated this the 12th day of April, 2024
JUDGMENT
The petitioner challenges the appointment of the 4th respondent to the post of Assistant in the 2nd respondent.
2. Ext.P1 is the notification dated 07.04.2017, under which applications were invited. The petitioner applied for the post. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner's application was not considered and that he came to know that the 4th respondent was appointed.
3. The contesting respondents have filed a counter affidavit stating that, the qualification required for the post was Degree and experience in computer. The petitioner failed to produce the relevant certificates along with the application WP(C) No.27559/17 -: 2 :- and therefore the petitioner's application was rejected at the very first stage of verification.
It is noticed that the appointment was for a period of one year. The said period expired long back. In the circumstances, the writ petition has become infructuous.
Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed as infructuous.
Sd/-
Sathish Ninan, Judge SVP