IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 1ST FEBRUARY 2010 / 12TH MAGHA 1931 WA.No. 707 of 2007() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.18276/2006 Dated 28/07/2006 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER. ------------------------- RAJEEV RAJ, T.C.27/567, BHAVANA, DHARMA DESAM ROAD, VANCHIYOOR P.O., TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM SRI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS. --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE SECRETARY PUBLIC WORKS (A) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, TRIVANDRUM. 3. CHIEF ENGINEER, PWD (ADMINISTRATION) TRIVANDRUM. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BENNY GERVASIS FOR R1-3 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------- W.A.No.707 of 2007 ---------------------------------------- Dated 1st February, 2010 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The appellant was the writ petitioner. He was an applicant for appointment under the Dying-in-harness Scheme. His mother Smt.L.Kaviswami Kamal died in harness while working as Assistant Engineer in the Public Works Department. The appellant is a B.Tech Degree holder. So, he is qualified to be appointed as an Assistant Engineer. But, he was offered appointment only as a Lower Division Clerk. After joining that post he submitted a representation claiming appointment as Assistant Engineer. The said representation was rejected by Ext.P2. Pointing out that in the case of another candidate, as evident from Ext.P5, who is stated to be similarly situated, appointment has been given as Assistant Engineer, the writ petition was filed. The learned Single Judge noticed that, as per the scheme for employment on compassionate ground, the appointment could be given only in Class III and Class IV posts. So, the claim of the appellant was found to be untenable in the light of the said provision. In that view of the matter, the writ petition was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved by the decision of the learned Single Judge, this writ appeal is filed. W.A.No.707/2007 2 The appellant prayed that the treatment, as in the case of similarly placed candidate given as per Ext.P5, may be extended to him. Now it is fairly settled that this Court cannot direct the Government to repeat an illegality for satisfying the requirement of equality. The appellant has to sustain his claim based on his rights. As per the scheme, no appointment can be made in a Class II post. Therefore, we find nothing wrong with the decision of the learned Single Judge. Accordingly the writ appeal fails and it is dismissed. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR Judge P.N.RAVINDRAN Judge TKS