IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2010 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 12357 of 2010(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- T.K.ABDUL LATHEEF, THOLAMKUZHY, KEZHMEDU, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.S.RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI SRI.O.K.MURALEEDHARAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICE, CIVIL STATION, COLLECTORATE, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, SUPPLY OFFICE, ALUVA. BY GOVT.PLEADER SHRI P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 12357 of 2010-T - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 8th day of April, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner is the legal heir of late Shri T.K. Kunju Muhammed, who was a licensee of ARD No.201 of Aluva Taluk. He expired on 5.9.2008. There are ten legal heirs, out of which the petitioner is the third one, going by Ext.P1 legal heirship certificate. All the legal heirs have consented for the petitioner's appointment as ARD, which is evident from Ext.P2. Accordingly, an application along with the required certificates, have been filed as per Exts.P3 to P5. The said application has been rejected as per Ext.P7, relying upon the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.1217/2009. 2. Evidently, the direction issued by the Division Bench in the judgment in W.A. No.1217/2009 and another judgment, Ext.P8 will not prevent the consideration of the claim of legal heirs for appointment on a temporary basis. The direction in Ext.P8 is that priority contemplated under Clause 45(2) is only subject to the operation of the reservation under clause 45(2)(i) as far as permanent appointment is concerned. In fact, the operative portion of the said judgment itself shows that as far as temporary wpc 12357 /2010 2 appointments are concerned, the authority can make appointment till permanent appointment is made. 3. Ext.P9 is another judgment in W.P.(C) No.4021/2010 wherein also a similar direction was issued. 4. Therefore, Ext.P7 is quashed. There will be a direction to the second respondent to pass fresh orders with regard to the claim for temporary appointment. It is made clear that the said temporary appointment will be valid till a permanent appointment is made in terms of the directions issued by the Division Bench. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/