IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2009 / 23RD ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 7763 of 2009(M) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SABU K. S/O.LATE KUTTAPPAN, 38 YEARS, THAZHENINNATERIVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, ARUMANOOR, PUVVAR POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT (PEON, JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, OTTAPALAM) BY ADV. SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMI SRI.R.SREEHARI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT EMPLOYMENT OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE DIST. EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 4. THE EMPLOYMENT OFFICER, TOWN EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE, NEYYATTINKARA. 5. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT CO-OP BANK LTD., HEAD OFFICE, P.B NO.5122, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER. 6. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 7. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OP SOCIETIES, KERALA THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. MR.K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.7763 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 14th day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a physically handicapped person having 50% disability. Ext.P5 is a list prepared by the 1st respondent, of physically handicapped persons eligible for re-appointment, and the petitioner's name figures at Sl.No.106 in the said list. Claiming the benefit of Ext.P5, he filed Ext.P6 before the 5th respondent. There was no response. In the meanwhile, the 1st respondent again issued Ext.P7, directing implementation of Ext.P5. Even thereafter there was no response, which led the petitioner to move the 1st respondent itself by filing Ext.P8 representation. 2. Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.32465/2008 resulting in Ext.P9 judgment, where the petitioner was directed to move the Registrar of Co-operative Societies for appropriate directions. In pursuance thereof, the matter was considered by the Registrar, who issued Ext.P10 order stating that he is awaiting certain clarifications from the Government for implementing Ext.P5 and giving reappointment. Even thereafter, there was no progress in the matter and therefore, WP(C) No.7763/2009 -2- this writ petition is filed mainly praying that the petitioner should be re-appointed in pursuance to Exts.P5 & P7. 3. The learned Government Pleader, who has obtained instructions in the matter, has no quarrel about the veracity of Exts.P5 & P7. He only points out that guidelines in the matter is yet to be issued by the 1st respondent. If that be so, there is no reason why the petitioner should not get the benefit of re-appointment as claimed. 4. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to issue necessary guidelines in this matter, so that the 7th respondent can issue orders appointing the petitioner in pursuance to Exts.P5 & P7. Necessary Guidelines in this behalf shall be issued by the 1st respondent as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months of production of a copy of this judgment, and thereafter, the 7th respondent shall issue orders of re- appointment. 5. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before respondents 1 & 7 for compliance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg