IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 28449 of 2010(E)
1. N.SUDHA MONY, W/O.KRITHIVASAN,SWEEPER,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR,KERALA UNIVERSITY,
3. THE PRINCIPAL,KERALA UNIVERSITY CENTRE
For Petitioner :SRI.B.MOHANLAL
For Respondent :SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, SC, KERALA UTY.
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :08/10/2010
O R D E R
K.T.SANKARAN, J.
------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.28449 OF 2010
------------------------------
Dated this the 8th day of October, 2010
JUDGMENT
According to the petitioner, she was appointed
as Sweeper in the Kerala University Centre for
Teacher Education, Anchal in 1994 after a due
selection process. She was working as Sweeper till
2008 without interruption. While so, on 6.8.2008,
Ext.P1 memo was issued by the Kerala University
stating that the petitioner was not regular in
attending her duties . Explanation was called for
from the petitioner. The petitioner submitted
Ext.P2 reply in which she explained the
circumstances under which certain lapses occurred
on her part in attending to the duties. She also
stated the circumstances under which she had to
undergo a surgery. On 4.9.2008, the petitioner
submitted Ext.P3 representation to the Deputy
Registrar of the University praying that she may be
permitted to join duty.
W.P.(C).No.28449 OF 2010 2
2. Finding no response to Ext.P3, the
petitioner submitted Ext.P5 representation dated
nil before the Hon’ble Chief Minister. It is
stated that Ext.P5 was forwarded to the Vice
Chancellor of the University. The learned Standing
Counsel submitted that Ext.P5 was received by the
Vice Chancellor.
3. The prayer made by the petitioner in the
Writ Petition is to quash the proceedings for
termination of the service of the petitioner and
for the issue of a writ of mandamus to reinstate
her in service in the post of Sweeper.
4. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for
the respondents submitted that the petitioner was
not appointed on regular employment and she was
only engaged as daily rated worker. There was no
continuance for a period of 14 years as alleged by
the petitioner. The petitioner was not regular in
attending to the duties and there was dereliction
W.P.(C).No.28449 OF 2010 3
of duty on the part of the petitioner. In these
circumstances, Ext.P1 memo was issued. It is also
contended by the Standing Counsel that the
petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs prayed
for in the Writ Petition.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that for the time being, the petitioner
would be satisfied, if the Vice Chancellor (second
respondent) is directed to consider and dispose of
Ext.P5, after affording an opportunity of being
heard to the petitioner. It is submitted that the
petitioner also may be permitted to reserve all her
contentions, to be taken at the appropriate stage.
6. After having heard the learned counsel for
the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel, I
am of the view that it is only just and proper to
direct the second respondent to consider and
dispose of Ext.P5 representation as expeditiously
as possible and at any rate within a period of two
W.P.(C).No.28449 OF 2010 4
months from the date of receipt of a copy of the
judgment, after affording an opportunity of being
heard to the petitioner. The petitioner shall
produce a copy of the Writ Petition and certified
copy of the judgment before the second respondent.
The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
K.T.SANKARAN,
JUDGE.
cms