PRAVEEN P. Vs. KERALA SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner claims that he was a short listed candidate who submitted application for appointment as unskilled worker (Grade-IV) pursuant to Ext.P1 notification issued on 09.04.2010. it is stated that petitioner appeared in the interview held on 31.01.2011. On the basis of the information collected under Right to Information Act, the petitioner has filed this writ petition on 02.08.2019 alleging that the persons who were appointed did not have the prescribed experience. He has also produced the judgment of this Court dated 01.03.2016 in W.P.(C) No.9096 of 2012 filed by one Sreekanth Sagar challenging the selection and appointment. This Court found that the allegations were baseless and upheld selection. It is thereafter that petitioner has filed this writ petition pointing out the judgments in respect of subsequent selection.

(2.) The respondents 1 and 2 have filed a statement pointing out that the petitioner had submitted Ext.P14 complaint before the Lokayukta challenging the selection and the complaint was rejected. The respondents have also stated that the written test was conducted by Kerala Industrial and Technical Consultancy Organisation Ltd. (KITCO). The rank list for selection and appointment of the unskilled workers were made in the year 2011 which was challenged, but upheld in Ext.P15 judgment.

(3.) Though the petitioner has produced Ext.P14 complaint filed before Lokayuktha nothing is stated regarding the outcome of the same. Appointments were made on the basis of the impugned selection long back. At this distance of time, after a period of nine years petitioner cannot come with new allegations. It is settled law that a person who does not approach the Court with due diligence within a reasonable time will not be entitled to any relief.