IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 16TH MARCH 2009 / 25TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 11596 of 2008(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- KAVITHA P.J., W/O.SIVANANDAN, AGED 37 YEARS, OFFICE ASSISTANT, VEGETABLE AND FRUIT PROMOTION COUNCIL KERALAM, RESIDING AT PALANCHERIKALAM, NENMENI P.O., KOLLENGODE, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY SMT.A.PREMAKUMARI RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. VEGETABLE AND FRUIT PROMOTION COUNCIL KERALAM REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, MYTHRI BHAVAN, KAKKANAD, KOCHI - 682 037. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.N.SUGATHAN,SC,VEGE.& FRUITS PROMOTI GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. ANU SIVARAMAN FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No.11596 of 2008 -------------------------- Dated this the 16th March,2009 J U D G M E N T This writ petition was filed by the petitioner apprehending termination of service. As per Exhibit-P1, the petitioner was appointed on a temporary contractual basis as an Assistant Facilitator in a scheme to be implemented by the 1st respondent under the Rashtriya Sam Vikas Yojana. 2. By Exhibit-P2 dated 28.1.2006, the petitioner was provisionally appointed as Office Assistant. 3. Earlier when her appointment was cancelled, petitioner along with others had approached this Court by filing WPC No.11314/2007, wherein, as per the interim order, the termination was stayed and ultimately the writ petition was disposed of quashing the orders of termination and directing the respondents to pass fresh orders after affording an opportunity for personal hearing to the parties concerned. The said judgment is reported in Binoy Vs. Vegetable and Fruit Promotion Council [2007 (3) KLT 830]. 4. In paragraph 5 of the writ petition, petitioner states that a resolution of the Board was taken on 28.3.2008 W.P ( C) No.11596 of 2008 2 to terminate various employees including the petitioner . It is accordingly the petitioner has approached this Court in this writ petition seeking various reliefs. 5. Learned standing counsel appearing for the 1st respondent submitted that as far as the petitioner is concerned, no orders of termination have been communicated to her. This Court in a batch of cases in WPC No.11109 of 2008 and connected cases challenging orders of termination filed by various other employees, has already dismissed the same by judgment dated 3.3.2009. 6. Be that as it may, as the petitioner has not been ordered to be terminated from service subsequent to the judgment rendered by this Court in Binoy Vs. Vegetable and Fruit Promotion Council [2007 (3) KLT 830], it is up to the 1st respondent to take a decision in accordance with the directions contained in that judgment. The petitioner, if aggrieved by the order, can challenge the same also. With liberty to do so, the writ petition is closed. (T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No.11596 of 2008 3 W.P ( C) No.11596 of 2008 4