IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH JANUARY 2008 / 26TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 33916 of 2007(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ A.RAMAKRISHNAN NAIR,S/O.LATE K.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, CHALKAL HOUSE KUNDUCHI, P.O. VATTAMTHATTA, KASARGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SURESH KUMAR KODOTH RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE KASARAGOD PRIMARY CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD. NO.FF 113, KASARGOD 671121 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE PRESIDENT, THE KASARAGOD PRIMARY CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD. NO.FF 113, KASARGOD 671121 3. JOINT REGISTRAR (GENERAL CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, KASARGOD. 4. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN FOR R1 & R2 GOVT.PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN FOR R3 & R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN,J. -------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No. 33916 OF 2007 -------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a physically handicapped person who had worked some time, for the first respondent. According to him, on the basis of the Government orders, he was entitled to regularisation in service. That plea was considered by this court while issuing Exhibit P12 judgment. It was noticed that autonomous bodies had the discretion left to themselves, regarding regularisation. The employer of the first respondent, thereafter, as per the impugned resolution, decided that the petitioner cannot be engaged because there is no proposal to appoint a junior clerk on regular basis. In the writ petition, the petitioner has shown that there is a proposal to appoint a peon and a driver. More importantly, he has administered that at least four persons have been appointed, provisionally, for specific periods. On the face of Exhibit P12 judgment, it was inappropriate that the petitioner was not considered for appointment as junior clerk at least on provisional basis. But that by itself need not be a ground to set the clock back adversely affecting the persons who have already been appointed as temporary clerks. W.P.(C)No.33916/07 2 2. While the impugned resolution shows that the Bank takes a stand that it does not have the financial ability to employ one more person, it does not exclude the right of the petitioner for employment and regularisation when the financial status of the Bank improves. 3. Under the aforesaid circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to reconsider the impugned decision if the petitioner makes appropriate application. In doing so, the first respondent will consider accommodating the petitioner, if and when a subsequent vacancy arises, at least provisionally, as a junior clerk. It would also be open to the first respondent to consider any request of the petitioner for being appointed against the vacancy of peon which has been advertised. The direction of the Joint Registrar to consider the petitioner as and when regular vacancy arises shall stand modified to the aforesaid extent. It is further directed that the petitioner shall be given first preference for appointment either on regular basis or on temporary basis as and when vacancy arises. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. dsn