M PEER MOHAMMED Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is an applicant for the post of Clerk/Cashier under the fifth respondent society. In response to notification dated 24.4.2006 the petitioner submitted an application. At the time of submission of the said application, in response to the said notification, he was an employee of Trivandrum Port and Headload Workers Labour Contract Workers Society Ltd.4245, Vallakkadavu in Thiruvananthapuram District. Subsequently, he left the job. THE grievance of the petitioner is that even though he was selected based on his application, he is now required to produce service certificate viz., a certificate to show that he is continuing as an employee of the aforesaid society. In other words, the stand of the respondents is that being an employee at the time of submission of application and at the time of appointment are necessary to consider a candidate under the quota set apart for employees of the member societies. It is aggrieved by the said condition that this writ petition has been filed. According to the petitioner, at the time of submission of application he was an employee of the aforesaid society. In the circumstances, the fact that he has subsequently abandoned the said job shall not dis-entitle him from getting appointment under the quota set apart for employees of the member societies, it is submitted. THErefore, the question posed for consideration is whether one should be in service of a member society at the time of submission of application as also at the time of appointment to get appointment under the quota set apart for employees of the member societies. THE learned standing counsel appearing for the second respondent brought to my notice a decision of this Court in Shibi.M.V. v. State of Kerala and others (2010 (3) KHC 774). Based on the same, it is submitted that the issue involved in this case is squarely covered against the petitioner. Virtually, the petitioner also did not refute the said contention. Having gone through the judgment of this Court reported in 2010 (3) KHC 774 (supra), I am of the view that the issue involved in this case is squarely covered against the petitioner as per the said decision. I am also perfectly agreeing with the aforesaid decision. THErefore, I find no merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, it is dismissed.