IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 317 of 2008()
1. SREEJAN M.K., AGED 36 YEARS
... Petitioner
Vs
1. MINI RAJENDRAN ALIAS MINIMOL T.N.,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
3. THE DIRECTOR
4. THE PROJECT OFFICER
5. TRIBAL EXTENSION OFFICER
For Petitioner :SRI.P.T.DINESH
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.B.KOSHY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :09/06/2008
O R D E R
J.B.Koshy & P.N.Ravindran, JJ.
=====================
W.A.No.317 of 2008
=====================
Dated this the 9th day of June, 2008.
JUDGMENT
Koshy,J.
The writ petitioner was appointed as a Part-time Sweeper
on 29.10.2002 on a monthly remuneration of Rs.600/- in the
Government Industrial Training Centre. Her services were
terminated and in her place, the fifth respondent was appointed
on a temporary basis by Ext.P2. Originally, she did not question
the termination as there was no legal right and she also joined as
a Cook on daily wages. But after the decision of this Court in
Mercy v. State of Kerala – 2004(2) K.L.T. 848, the petitioner
was entitled to continue and the Government has accepted that
decision as can be seen from the Government order issued in
2005, according to which the Sweeper employed prior to
6.10.2003 can be retained in service. Since the petitioner was
appointed as Part-time Sweeper in 2002, she is entitled to the
above benefit under the Government order. But after the
termination of her service she joined as a Cook, which service
was also terminated. Therefore she approached this Court.
2. The learned single Judge after considering the factual
aspects held that the petitioner’s termination in 2003 was illegal
WA 317/08 -: 2 :-
and the petitioner is entitled to continue in service, especially
considering Ext.P3 order dated 25.11.2005. If the petitioner was
continuing in the temporary post, the appellant could not have
been appointed. It is also contended by the appellant that he
belongs to S.T. Community and that he has passed S.S.L.C. But
it is the petitioner’s case that she also belongs to S.T. Community
and that she has obtained higher marks than the appellant in
S.S.C.C. and she is living more close to the establishment in
question. In any event, we see no ground to disagree with the
judgment of the learned single Judge. However, if there are
vacancies, the Government may consider the case of the
appellant for accommodating him in similar service as he was
appointed through the Employment Exchange.
With the above observation, the appeal is dismissed.
J.B.Koshy,
Judge.
P.N.Ravindran,
Judge.
ess 10/6