IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI MONDAY, THE 21ST MARCH 2011 / 30TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 6494 of 2011(J) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. AJI JACOB, S/O.V.J.JACOB, AGED 36 YEARS, VADAKKEKARA HOUSE, MUTHALAKODAM P.O., THODUPUZHA. 2. JOBY GEORGE, S/O.E.A.GEORGE, AGED 29 YEARS, ETTARUPARAMBIL HOUSE, NJEEZHOOR P.O., KADUTHURUTHY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN SMT.P.G.BABITHA RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. THE INSTITUTE OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, (IHRD), PRAJOE TOWERS, VAZHUTHAKAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR-695 001. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.R. BINDU R2 BY ADV.SRI. M.K. CHANDRAMOHAN DAS, SC FOR IHRD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts A.K. BASHEER & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. ----------------------------------------------- WP(C) No.6494 of 2011 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT A.K. Basheer, J. Petitioners contend that they had worked in the College of Applied Science at Kaduthuruthy under the control and management of the Institute of Human Resources Development (IHRD, Thiruvananthapuram) for more than five years starting respectively from February and March 2001. To be specific, petitioner No.1 claims that he was engaged by the Principal of the college as watcher/peon for 179 days on daily wage basis by order dated February 7, 2001. Similarly, petitioner No. 2 was engaged on similar terms by order dated March 5, 2001. Petitioners further contend that they had continued to work in the institution referred to above, till March 2007 and even thereafter. We do not propose to deal with that issue at this stage. 2. The grievance of the petitioners is that the IHRD has refused to take into account the service rendered by them for more than five years while preparing a list of eligible candidates to be considered for regular engagement in the IHRD, though such benefit was accorded to several others who had worked for more than five years. Petitioners have produced Exhibit P5 WP(C) No.6494 of 2011 2 which is stated to be the list prepared by the IHRD containing the names of those employees who have been allowed to participate in the interview held for the purpose of selecting eligible candidates from among those who had been terminated from service on November 14, 2006 and those who had completed five years or more as on that date. 3. Petitioners pray for issue of a writ of certiorari to quash Exhibit P5 list, since it does not contain their names. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and having perused the materials available on record we do not find any reason to entertain this writ petition. If the petitioners are under the belief that they are entitled to get the benefit of certain orders passed by the IHRD extending some benefits to similarly placed candidates, it will be open to them to pursue the remedies available to them. With this observation the writ petition is dismissed. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE. P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE. rkc