High Court Kerala High Court

C.P.James vs The Kerala Water Authority on 11 June, 2007

Kerala High Court
C.P.James vs The Kerala Water Authority on 11 June, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WA No. 738 of 2002(D)


1. C.P.JAMES, CHERIYATH HOUSE,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. P.RADHAKRISHNAN, THEKKEYIL HOUSE,
3. C.K.AJITH KUMAR, CHATTIKANDY HOUSE,
4. T.M.BABU, THEKKEMULLOLIL HOUSE,
5. M.P.VALSARAJ, M.P.HOUSE, MELUR P.O.,

                        Vs



1. THE KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, REP. BY ITS
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,

3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,

4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.THOMAS ANTONY

                For Respondent  :SRI.M.V.MATHAI MUTHIRENTHY, SC, KWA

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :11/06/2007

 O R D E R


                             K.S.Radhakrishnan

                                          &

                             Antony Dominic, JJ.

                ========================

                            W.A.No.738 of 2002

                ========================


                Dated this the 11th  day of June, 2007.


                                   JUDGMENT

Radhakrishnan,J.

Original Petition was preferred by the appellants seeking a writ of

certiorari to quash Exts.P5 and P10 and for a mandamus directing the

respondents to readmit the petitioners on duty and regularise their

services with effect from 10.4.1986, 2.4.1986 and 1.4.1986

respectively and for other consequential reliefs. Learned single Judge

found no reason to interfere with the Original Petition. A decision in

Jacob v. Kerala Water Authority – 1990(2) K.L.T. 673 was cited to

show that the services of workers employed by the Authority between

1st April, 1984 and 4th August, 1986 will be regularised if they possess

the requisite qualifications for the post prescribed on the date of

appointment of the concerned worker. Admittedly, petitioners’

services have been terminated much before the date of the decision of

the Apex Court. Hence the direction for regularisation does not cover

persons like the petitioners. Petitioners have not satisfied the

WA 738/02 -: 2 :-

conditions contained in G.O.(MS) No.5/91/LAD dated 5.1.1991.

We find no ground to entertain this Writ Appeal and the same is

dismissed.

K.S.Radhakrishnan,

Judge.

Antony Dominic,

Judge.

ess 11/6