IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 25193 of 2008(Y)
1. K.K.REGHU, FIELDMAN (FISHERIES) HR.GR.
... Petitioner
Vs
1. REGISTRAR, KERALA AGRICULTURAL
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO
3. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
For Petitioner :SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ
For Respondent :SRI.RENJITH THAMPAN,SC,KERALA AGRL.UTY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
Dated :29/08/2008
O R D E R
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
-------------------------------------------
W.P(C).No.25193 OF 2008
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 29th day of August, 2008
JUDGMENT
The petitioner passed S.S.L.C. and completed B.A. Degree
course. He is stated to have obtained training in Prawn Culture
from ICAR. He joined as Fisherman in the Kerala Agricultural
University on 26.5.1981 and is working as Fieldman (fisheries)
Higher Grade in the Fisheries Station, Puduveypu, Kochi. He
states that he is due to retire, however, that he is the only
Fisherman in that University. He also says that he is the only
person who has passed Fisherman Training conducted by the
Department of Fisheries under the Government of Kerala, to be
eligible to be posted as Fieldman. Such training was abolished
in 1986. He, accordingly, points out that there would be none to
be appointed to the post of Fieldman, as of now. He further
states that he has abundant experience and knowledge in
providing assistance in the laboratories, farm and field where
research and related activities are going on. He states that he
has able body and willing to work, though he is attaining 55
WPC.25193/08
Page numbers
years of age and is due to retire on 31.8.2008. Essentially, to
generate livelihood for himself, he seeks the indulgence of the
University to consider continuing him in service or to re-appoint
him or engage him under any mode. He has, therefore, made
Ext.P2 representation, which can gain appropriate attention of
the competent among the respondents. Hence, while directing
that the said representation shall be considered by the
competent among the respondents, it is ordered that the fact
that the petitioner may superannuate or his superannuation will
not be a ground to deny him appointment, if the respondents
decide to give him such opportunity. The writ petition is ordered
accordingly.
Sd/-
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN,
Judge
kkb.30/8.