JUDGMENT :

A. BADHARUDEEN, J.

The original respondents 1 to 4 in W.P(c).No.4990/2011 before this Court have preferred this intra court appeal under Section 5 of the High Court Act, arraying the petitioner and respondent No.5 as the respondents herein, challenging judgment dated 18.01.2021 rendered by the learned Single Judge in the above Writ Petition.

2. The parties in this appeal are referred with reference to their status in the Writ Petition.

3. Brief facts of the case :

The petitioner had filed the Writ Petition challenging Exts.P8 and P14 orders as per which his applications for appointment under the dying in harness scheme applicable to the Food Corporation of India (F.C.I), the 1st respondent, were rejected on the ground of delay.

4. The prayers in the Writ Petition are as follows :

“(i) To issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records leading to Exts.P8 and P14 and quash the same;

(ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to consider the petitioner for appointment under the dying in harness scheme;

(iii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner in a suitable post under the dying in harness scheme, in accordance with law;

(iv) To declare that the petitioner is entitled for appointment under the dying in harness scheme under the respondents: and

(v) To grant such other and further reliefs as are just, proper and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

5. The learned Single Judge addressed the issue and finally allowed the Writ Petition and thereby Exts.P8 and P10 were set aside (Exts.P8 and P14) and consequently directed the competent respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, but not later than 4 months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

6. Respondents 1 to 4, who are F.C.I and its officials, filed this Writ Appeal. The first contention posed is that even though Ext.P1 is only a forwarding letter issued by the 4th respondent to the 3rd respondent with the application of the petitioner dated 3.11.2004 along with documents attached therein, the learned Single Judge had mistakenly read Ext.P1 as a letter issued by the F.C.I directing the petitioner to produce documents to substantiate his claim under DDE quota.

7. While addressing this challenge, a perusal of Ext.P1 is necessary. Ext.P1 dated 1.3.2005 is a letter issued by the Assistant Manager, Administration, F.C.I to the Senior Regional Manager, FCI, Trivandrum for forwarding the application put in by the petitioner herein. On perusal of the judgment impugned, discussion regarding Ext.P1 could be gathered in para.7, which reads as under:

“7. It is conceded that the petitioner's application for appointment under the dying in harness was made within four months after his father unfortunately died on 28.06.2004. On receipt of the said application, the first respondent – FCI issued Ext.P1 letter to him asking to produce certain documents. Pertinently, neither a legal-heirship certificate nor statement of immovable property are listed therein.”

On perusing para.7, it appears that Ext.P1 referred therein, in fact is Ext.P6. In this connection, it is relevant to refer Ext.P6 dated 30.05.2010. Ext.P6 was issued from the District Office, FCI, Alappuzha, to the petitioner, which is extracted below for easy understanding:

“The required documents like Legal Heir ship Certificate and Immovable Property Statement has not yet furnished by you despite repeated communication from this office. Now our Regional Office is pressing us to forward the same without much delay.

Hence it is once again requested to you that the document mentioned above may please be furnished at the earliest to process your DDE quota application.”

In fact Ext.P6 is the letter dt.3.5.2010 whereby the petitioner was directed to produce documents inclus