IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 1759 of 2007(H)
1. T.HAREENDRAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
For Petitioner :SRI.N.DHARMADAN (SR.)
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.K.DENESAN
Dated :16/01/2007
O R D E R
K.K.DENESAN, J.
-----------------------------
WP(C)No. 1759 OF 2007
-----------------------------
Dated this the 16th January, 2007.
JUDGMENT
Heard Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner,
standing counsel for the second respondent and Govt.
Pleader for first respondent.
2. It is stated that the petitioner was employed on
provisional basis as an H.R worker before 1998, and
therefore, his case ought to have been considered based on
the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Jacob v.
Kerala Water Authority {1990(2) KLT 673}. Materials
produced on record show that the above request of the
petitioner was not allowed by the Water Authority and the
Managing Director of the second respondent had passed
Ext.P6 order informing him that his case cannot be
considered for regularisation in service. Ext.P6 was
passed on 19.1.1998. Sometime thereafter, the petitioner
approached the Government. As per Ext.P8 Government letter
dated 13.1.2003 the petitioner was informed that the
request made by the petitioner cannot be granted. Long
thereafter he filed Ext.P9 representation before the
Managing Director of the second respondent on 4.7.2005
requesting to engage him atleast temporarily since all
those who had worked along with him prior to 1990 are
WPC 1759/2007 2
enjoying the benefit of regularisation in service.
3. The reliefs prayed for in this writ petition
include a prayer to quash Exts.P6 and P8 orders.
4. The dates on which the impugned orders were passed
clearly show that the petitioner has not been vigilant in
challenging the same. Several years have lapsed since the
date of issuance of those orders. The petitioner is guilty
of laches and on that sole ground this writ petition is
liable to be dismissed. No relief can be granted in the
nature of a writ of mandamus directing to the second
respondent to consider Ext.P9, since the filling up of the
posts on a temporary basis also shall conform to certain
norms. The second respondent, can make temporary
appointments only the basis of a list of candidates
supplied by the Employment Exchange. If the petitioner’s
name is sponsored by the Employment Exchange, certainly,
his entitlement shall be considered by the competent
authority.
Writ petition fails and is therefore dismissed.
K.K.DENESAN
Judge
jj