M.Mohammed Raphy vs The Chairman
2021 Latest Caselaw 6912 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

    FRIDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 7TH PHALGUNA, 1942

                      WP(C).No.30501 OF 2011(K)


PETITIONER:

               M.MOHAMMED RAPHY, AGED 58 YEARS,, S/O.HASSAN,
               PERSONAL ASSISTANT TO THE DY., CONSERVATOR,,
               COCHINPORT TRUST, KOCHI-682009

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.)
               SMT.SARITHA DAVID CHUNKATH
               SMT.SMITHA GEORGE

RESPONDENTS:

      1        THE CHAIRMAN, COCHIN PORT TRUST & ORS.
               KOCHI-68209

      2        THE COCHIN PORT TRUST KOCHI-682009
               REP.BY ITS SECRETARY,

      3        MRS.K.P.DHEEMATMAJA, WELFARE OFFICER,
               COCHIN PORT TRUST,, KOCHI-682009

      4        MR.MOHANDAS S WELFARE OFFICER
               COCHIN PORT TRUST, KOCHI-682009

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.K.ANAND (SR.)
               SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI
               SMT.LATHA ANAND


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD        ON
26.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WPC 30501/11
                                       2




                                    JUDGMENT

This Writ Petition has been filed in the

year 2011 with the following prayers:

i) To issue a Writ of Mandamus forbearing respondents 1 and 2 to make appointment to the post of Senior Welfare Officer by deputation on the basis of Ext.P1 or from filling it up by any ineligible candidates who does not satisfy the prescribed length of service under Ext.P2.

ii) To declare that the failure to consider the case of the petitioner to the post of Senior Welfare Officer either under Ext.P1 or P2 is violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

iii) To issue such other writs, orders or directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

2. When this matter was called today, the

learned Standing Counsel for the Port Trust

submitted that this matter may have become

infructuous, since both the petitioner and the

contesting respondents have retired from

service and also because the petitioner only

wanted the post of Senior Welfare Officer to

be filled up by deputation; which, at this WPC 30501/11

point of time, may not be relevant.

3. When this matter was called, there was

no representation for the petitioner and I am,

therefore, inferentially driven to the

suspicion that the submissions made on behalf

of the Port Trust are credible.

In the afore circumstances, this Writ

Petition is dismissed for want of prosecution;

but more so because I think that it has become

infructuous.

Sd/-

                                       DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
       RR                                    JUDGE