IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 13TH JULY 2010 / 22ND ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 19749 of 2010(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SUNITHA.O., KADILAIZHIKATHU VEEDU, ULIYAKOVIL, KOLLAM, ATTENDER GR.II, DISTRICT HOSPITAL, KOLLAM, (TERMINATED). BY ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER OF HEALTH, KOLLAM. 4. THE DISTRICT EMPLOYMENT OFFICER, KOLLAM. 5. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY AFFAIRS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. ARAVINDAKUMAR BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.19749 OF 2010(P) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner was appointed as Hospital Attendant Grd.II under Rule 9(a)(i) of Part-II KS &SSR. Complaining that similarly situated persons were regularized and that her service is also liable to be regularized, she approached this court. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P3 judgment directing that the petitioner shall file a representation before the Secretary to Government, in which event her claim for regularization shall be considered on a par with the similarly situated persons. According to the petitioner Ext.P4 representation has been filed and that orders have not been passed so far. It is stated that in the meanwhile vacancies available are filled up by direct recruits. It is in this background this writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioner and treat as being continued in her original appointment. 2. The prayer sought by the petitioner in this writ petition is similar as the one urged by the petitioner in WP(c).No.23973/08, resulting in Ext.P3 judgment. Therefore the petitioner will have to WPC.No. 19749/2010 :2 : await the decision on Ext.P3 and if according to the petitioner there is violation of the direction of this court, the remedy available to the petitioner is to file a petition under the Contempt of Courts Act. Either way this writ petition is not maintainable. Writ Petition is closed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/