IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 37332 of 2009(J)
1. O.C.BABY S/O. CHERIAN, AGED 46 YEARS,
... Petitioner
2. K.V.DAISY, W/O. MARKOSE, AGED 41 YEARS,
Vs
1. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER,
... Respondent
2. THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.C.K.PAVITHRAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :15/01/2010
O R D E R
T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
---------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.37332 OF 2009
---------------------------------------
Dated this the 15th day of January, 2010.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioners have been provisionally appointed as
Authorized Retail Distributors in Muvattupuzha Taluk under
clause 45(1) of the Kerala Rationing Order 1966. The
1st petitioner was appointed in respect of ARD No.217 as per
Exhibit P1 proceedings. This was being extended from time to
time. By Exhibit P3, the 2nd petitioner was appointed. Alleging
that the provisional appointments are proposed to be terminated
without any valid reason, this writ petition has been filed.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondents are
taking action in the light of the interim order passed in Writ
Appeal No.1217/2009. It is submitted that the Writ Appeal has
been subsequently disposed of.
3. Learned Government Pleader brought to my notice the
judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C)No.35583 of
2009 wherein it has been held that any priority contemplated in
clause 45(2) is only subject to the operation of the reservation
W.P.(C) No.37332/2009 2
under clause 45(2)(1).
4. As far as the provisional appointments are concerned,
there cannot not be any embargo, and till permanent
appointments are made, the provisional arrangement will
continue. The department will be free to proceed with any
action for permanent appointment in accordance with the Rules
also. The 1st petitioner will be allowed to continue on the present
provisional arrangement till such permanent appointments are
made.
As far as the 2nd petitioner is concerned, it is submitted by
the learned counsel for the petitioner that during the pendency of
the writ petition, the provisional arrangement has been
terminated and now the shop is attached to another ARD. It is
upto the 2nd petitioner to move the competent authority for
extension of the arrangement and if an application is filed, the
same will be considered in accordance with law expeditiously by
the respondents.
This writ petition is disposed of as above.
T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
JUDGE
smp