The petitioner is aggrieved with the rejection of the application said to have been filed pursuant to Ext.P4 notification. The petitioner admittedly is a contract labourer engaged in the 1st respondent Union. However, that does not give him any preference and he applied as per Ext.P4 notification. The rejection of the application was on account of the petitioner having not enclosed the proof of age and qualification along with the application. 2. Though the application form is produced, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent would contend that, general instructions given to candidates, which was appended with the application form, has not been WP(C).30689/14 2 produced herein. In the general instructions, it has been specifically mandated that, proof of age and qualification should be produced along with the application itself. The petitioner had not produced the same and hence, the application was rejected. It is also submitted that, there were 2121 applications of which 111 were rejected. Out of the rejected applications, 41 applications were rejected for the reason that , proof of age and qualification has not been produced.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner points to the application form, in which the petitioner is seen to have stated, that the “Demand Draft, copy of the SSLC and experience certificate” are enclosed. However, there is no reason, why the submission of the 1st respondent should be rejected especially since the 1st respondent specifically contends that despite WP(C).30689/14 3 such notation in the application, same was not produced along with the application. In such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant any of the reliefs.
The writ petition would stand dismissed.
Sd/-
K.VINOD CHANDRAN Judge Mrcs //True Copy//