IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 3857 of 2010(F)
1. SHYLAJAKUMARI P.G.,
... Petitioner
2. LUCY M.K.,
3. NISHA P.,
4. T.SANTHI,
5. HASEENA K.K.,
6. JASMIN C.T.P.,
7. SAFIA T.,
8. MINI PILAKKATTU,
9. BINDU T.M.,
10. B.H.SALINA,
11. PRABHA GANDHI V.,
12. BINDU C.S.,
13. MEERA JAYAPRAKASH,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR,
For Petitioner :DR.K.P.SATHEESAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :09/07/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
================
W.P.(C) NO. 3857 OF 2010 (F)
=====================
Dated this the 9th day of July, 2010
J U D G M E N T
Petitioners are ICDS Supervisors working on contract basis.
In this writ petition, they claim regularization in service. According
to the petitioners, 47 of their colleagues were ordered to be
regularized by Ext.P6 order. Relying on Ext.P6, they also sought
regularization by filing Exts.P7 to P19 before the 1st respondent.
Orders were not passed, and therefore, the writ petition is filed.
2. Petitioners now point out that, by Ext.P20, orders have
been issued by the 2nd respondent implementing Ext.P6, and
therefore, their representations should be considered on an
expeditious basis.
3. If as stated by the petitioners, their colleagues, who
are similarly situated have been regularised, they are entitled to
have their claim for regularization also considered in the same
manner.
Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition directing the 1st
respondent to pass orders on Exts.P7 to P19 representations in
the light of Exts.P6 and P20 referred to above. Orders shall be
WPC No. 3857/10
:2 :
passed, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 6 weeks of
production of a copy of this judgment.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp