IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 3726 of 2009(R)
1. K.RADHA, VALLITHUNDIL HOUSE, MULLIKKALA,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE SECRETARY, HEALTH AND FAMILY
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR, HEALTH DEPARTMENT,
3. THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SMT.P.K.SANTHAMMA
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :11/03/2009
O R D E R
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J
--------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 3726 of 2009
---------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of March, 2009
JUDGMENT
The petitioner was appointed under Rule 9(a)(i) of the KS
& SSR, as Hospital Attendant Grade II at the Taluk Head
Quarters Hospital, Karunagappally, way back on 11.06.1999.
She was appointed for a period of 180 days and on completion of
179 days she was terminated. The petitioner had another spell
of appointment as Hospital Attendant Grade II which was made
by the Superintendent of Taluk Head Quarters, Karunagappally
on the advice of the Block Panchayat on contract basis which
was made through Employment Exchange.
2. The Government by Ext.P6 order dated 16.11.2007,
conferred the benefit of regularisation for provisional employees
in the cadre of Hospital Assistant Grade II, who were engaged
through Employment Exchanges and were continuing on the
basis of various judgments of this Court and the Apex Court. A
list of such employees are appended by the said order. The
petitioner is seeking a similar benefit. Going by Ext.P6, the
benefit is conferred only on a class of employees who are
appointed on provisional basis but have been allowed to
wpc:3726 of 2009
2
continue on the basis of various judgments. Their total number is
908. It is also stated that a Special Leave Application pending
before the Apex Court in the matter will be withdrawn before
regularising them. Obviously, the petitioner will not be eligible
to get regularisation on the basis of Ext.P6, since she was not in
service as on the date of order and there is no other judgment
allowing her to continue. Hence no relief can be granted in this
writ petition.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submitted that petitioner has filed Ext.P5 representation before
the first respondent for appropriate orders in the matter. It is up
to the first respondent to examine the matter in the light of
specific terms of Ext.P6.
In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the
first respondent to take a decision on Ext.P5 within a period of
two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment
and communicate the same to the petitioner.
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,
JUDGE
bps