SIRAJ S M SAJID MANZIL Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition is filed with the following prayers:-

(2.) THE crucial issue is whether the 3rd respondent was permanently employed at the time the disputed selection was conducted. THEre is no counter affidavit by the 3rd respondent. Be that as it may, since the same is a simple matter for factual verification, it is only appropriate that the matter is considered by the District Collector, Alappuzha, the 1st respondent herein, with notice to the petitioners also. THE writ petition is disposed of as follows: THEre will be a direction to the 1st respondent to look into the grievances raised by the petitioners herein that the 3rd respondent was permanently employed at the time of selection. If the 3rd respondent was permanently employed at the time of selection, he need not be considered for selection in question since apparently he had not informed of his engagement to the 4th respondent. THE 1st respondent will complete the selection process in the light of observations contained in this judgment, within a period of two months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment by the petitioners. However, it is made clear that the judgment will not stand in the way of the 3rd respondent being considered for any other vacancy in future in accordance with law.