IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 25TH JANUARY 2010 / 5TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 37660 of 2009(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- KUMARI SASIKALA J.R, EDAVELI VEEDUM ARASUPARAMBU, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN SMT.RESMI G. NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVT.PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO. 37660 OF 2009 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of January, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a physically handicapped person who rendered provisional service in two spells, firstly, in Economics and Statistics Department as Enumerator and then, as Assistant Grade-II under the Finance Department. The initial spell was for a period of two months from 31.11.1993 and that was extended for another month. The second spell of provisional service was for a period of 179 days. Based on the said spells of provisional service, the petitioner claimed regularisation in terms of circular dated 22.10.1994. In fact, it is the fifth round of litigation, as far as the petitioner is concerned. Earlier, she was given re-appointment as per Ext.P2 order and Ext.P8 impugned order was quashed and the respondents were directed to regularise the service of the petitioner. The said judgment in O.P.No.3621/1996 was taken in appeal. As per Ext.P3, judgment in O.P.No.3621/1996 was set aside and on merits it was found that the petitioner was not eligible to claim regularisation. However, it was made clear that the dismissal would not stand on the way of Government taking a sympathetic view and exploring possibility of W.P.(C) NO.37660 0f 2009 2 adjusting her elsewhere. 2. On the strength of the said observation made in Ext.P3, the petitioner pursued her claim further. Ext.P5 representation submitted before the Chief Minister was forwarded as per Ext.P6 for consideration by the appropriate authority. Subsequently, Ext.P8 order was passed. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P8 order. 3. The contention of the petitioner is that in view of Ext.P3, the claim of the petitioner should have been considered sympathetically by invoking Rule 39 of Kerala State & Subordinate Service Rules. However, a perusal of Ext.P8 would reveal absence of such a consideration which should have been bestowed in terms of Ext.P3. In the circumstances, Ext.P8 is quashed and the second respondent is directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for regularisation based on the aforesaid two spells of provisional service and in the light of the Government Order, by invoking the aforesaid power. Respondents shall consider the same within a period of two months from date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO.37660 0f 2009 3 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. CRL. M.C. NO. O R D E R 3rd June, 2009 W.P.(C) NO.37660 0f 2009 4