IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 29TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 7TH ASWINA 1931 Con.Case(C).No. 1056 of 2009(S) ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.15875/2008 Dated 30/06/2008 .................... PETITIONER/PETITIONER NO.3 ------------------------------ BABY PREETHA, AGED 36 YEARS, W/O.AJIMON M.M., PERUMPARA GARDENS, CMC 20, CHERTHALA P.O., ALAPPUZHA DIST. BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. DR.USHA TITUS, AGED 45 YEARS, W/O.TITUS T.KOSHY, SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DR.K.SHYLAJA, FATHER'S NAME AND AGE ARE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SRI.NURUL AMEEN, FATHER'S NAME AND AGE ARE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, KOZHIKODE. BY SR.GOVT. PLEADER SMT. ANU SIVARAMAN FOR R1,2&3 SC KPSC, SRI. ALEXANDER THOMAS THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- Cont.Case No. 1056 of 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 29th September,2009 J U D G M E N T Pursuant to a direction issued by this Court, a statement has been filed by the 2nd respondent. Paragraph 2 of the same reads as follows: It is submitted that as per the directions of this Hon'ble Court the assessment of vacancies has been done till June 2009, vide this office orders No.EE1-50951/2008 dated 29.9.2008, 24.12.2008, 26.3.2009 and 27.6.2009. True copies of the same orders produced herewith and marked as Annexure R2 (a), R2 (b), R2 (c) and R2 (d) respectively. As per the time frame, the assessment of vacancies at the next stage has to be done on September 2009. The procedures for the next assessment is going on and the next order will be issued without fail. On assessment of the vacancies done as per Annexure R2 (a) to Annexure R2 (d) the vacancies have been reported to PSC also. In the result, the contempt case is closed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to seek re-opening of the same, if the circumstances so warrant. (V.GIRI,JUDGE) ma 2 3