IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 11TH DECEMBER 2009 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 34444 of 2009(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- A. PADMINI, W/O. DASAN, AGED 54 YEARS, SWEEPER, GOVERNMENT HOMOEOPATHIC MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL, KARAPARAMBA, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.M.SAJJAD RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE PRINCIPAL AND CONTROLLING OFFICER, GOVERNMENET HOMOEOPATHIC MEDICAL COLLEGE, IRANIMUTTOM, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE PRINCIPAL AND SUPERINTENDENT, GOVERNMENT HOMOEOPATHIC MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL, KARAPARAMBA, KOZHIKODE. MRS.ANU SIVARAMAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------ WP(C) No.34444 of 2009 (A) -------------------------- Dated, this the 11th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T By Ext.P5 representation, the petitioner, who is working as a Sweeper, sought reversion as Part Time Sweeper, so as to allow her to continue in service till 70 years. This representation is pending. According to the petitioner, a request similar to Ext.P5 made by yet another person was directed to be favourably considered in Ext.P7 judgment of this Court and therefore similar relief should be extended to her also. 2. A reading of Ext.P7 judgment shows that this Court was concerned with the cases of the persons, who were initially appointed as part time sweepers and promoted as full time contingent employees, and sought reversion as part time sweepers. It is such request that was ordered to be considered. Unlike that case, in this case, the petitioner was appointed as a Sweeper. Therefore, there cannot be any reversion to a post lower than the one to which she was initially appointed. WP(C) No.34444/2009 -2- If that be so, the case dealt with by this Court in Ext.P7 judgment is totally in a different circumstances and cannot be of any assistance to the petitioner herein. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in Ext.P5 representation. Therefore, the writ petition fails, and is accordingly dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg