Dr.Ramakrishnan vs Reserve Bank Of India
2022 Latest Caselaw 3278 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
                   THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
     FRIDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 27TH PHALGUNA, 1943
                         WP(C) NO. 9506 OF 2021
PETITIONER/S:

          DR.RAMAKRISHNAN
          AGED 53 YEARS
          FLAT NO. 2B, C BLOCK,
          HEERA SWISS TOW, PIPINMOODU, SASTHAMANGALAM,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
          BY ADVS.
          P.V.JAYACHANDRAN
          SRI.NIDHI BALACHANDRAN
          SRI.M.BALAGOVINDAN
          SRI.A.ANOOP


RESPONDENT/S:

    1     RESERVE BANK OF INDIA
          REGIONAL OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM , REPRESENTED BY
          ITS MANAGER.
    2     HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
          REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER,
          BAKERY JUNCTION,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033.
          BY ADV MILLU DANDAPANI


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
18.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 9506 OF 2021
                                     2

                        JUDGMENT

Dated this the 18th day of March,2022

During the course of hearing, it was noticed that the petitioner had

not stated the entire facts in the writ petition. Hence, he was called

upon filed an affidavit stating the reason for suppressing the fact that he

had participated in a subsequent selection to the post of Bank Medical

Consultant. Accordingly, the petitioner has filed an affidavit stating that

the mistake was inadvertent and not willful. The petitioner, therefore,

seeks permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to move

afresh.

2. Learned Counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer for

permission to move afresh. It is submitted that material facts having

been suppressed by the petitioner, he is not entitled for such liberty. I

find merit in the objection raised by the learned Counsel for the

respondent, insofar as the challenge against Ext.P2 is concerned. But if

the petitioner is proposing to challenge the subsequent selection, the

dismissal of this writ petition need not interdict him from doing so.

Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. The

petitioner's liberty to move afresh will be confined to the subsequent

selection alone.

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN JUDGE RK