IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 34447 of 2009(A)
1. K. SUDHAKARAN, S/O. PADMANABHAN NAIR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KOZHIKODE CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS
... Respondent
2. THE SECRETARY,
3. THE HEALTH OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN
For Respondent :SRI.K.D.BABU,SC,KOZHIKODE CORPORATION
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :01/12/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
================
W.P.(C) NO. 34447 OF 2009 (A)
=====================
Dated this the 1st day of December, 2009
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner was appointed as a Contingent Employee in the
sanitation section of the Kozhikode Corporation. Subsequently,
he was deployed for tapal work on working arrangement. There
appears to have been some complaints about the working
arrangement thus made. However, in a meeting that was
convened by the Mayor, it was decided to continue the working
arrangement. Ext.P1 is the minutes of the meeting.
2. Later, by Ext.P2, the petitioner was transferred from
Circle No.13 where he was engaged for tapal work to Circle No.10
for sanitation work. This order was challenged before this Court in
WP(C) No.30681/09. Though the writ petition was dismissed, in
WA No.2468/09 filed by him, petitioner was given freedom to
represent against the transfer. Accordingly, he submitted Ext.P6
representation, where he also stated that he is a cardiac patient
and that, for that reason as well, he should be retained in the
tapal section. However, the request was rejected by Ext.P7,
where it is stated that the appointment of the petitioner was in
sanitation section and therefore he is bound to do sanitation work
WPC 34447/09 :2 :
as well. It is challenging this order, the writ petition is filed. Learned
counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner having been
assigned for work in the tapal section, could not have been
deployed again for sanitation work.
3. On the materials available, I am not able to accept this
plea. Evidently, appointment of the petitioner was in sanitation
section. He was assigned to do tapal work only on working
arrangement. Although it may have been decided by the
Corporation to continue the working arrangement, still it is always
open to the Corporation to require the petitioner to discharge
sanitation work depending upon the exigencies of work. This
precisely is what has been done in this case. Therefore, the
conclusions in the order rejecting the representation as evidenced
by Ext.P7 cannot be interfered with.
4. Be that as it may, if according to the petitioner, due to
his poor health condition, he is unable to discharge the duties
assigned to sanitation work, it is open to the petitioner to pursue his
claim for a convenient posting, in which event, that shall be dealt
with in accordance with law.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp