Midhun A vs State Of Kerala
2024 Latest Caselaw 10916 Ker

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

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