IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.K.DENESAN TUESDAY, THE 16TH JANUARY 2007 / 26TH PAUSHA 1928 WP(C).No. 589 of 2007(T) ------------------------ PETITIONER: ------------ 1. K.MADHUSUDHANAN NAIR, FOREST GUARD, FOREST RANGE OFFICE, KULATHUPUZHA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM FOREST DIVISION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. K.UDAYANAN NAIR, FOREST GUARD, FOREST FLYING SQUAD RANGE, CHULLIMANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. K.P.VINCENT, FOREST GUARD, FOREST RANGE OFFICE, KULATHUPUZHA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM FOREST DIVISION. BY ADV. SRI.AUGUSTINE JOSEPH SRI.K.S.ROCKEY RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, SOUTHERN CIRCLE, KOLLAM. 2. THE DIVISIONAL FORET OFFICER,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/01/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.K.DENESAN, J ------------------------------- W.P.(C)NO. 589 of 2007 ------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of January, 2007 JUDGMENT The petitioners have got a common grievance. It is contended that the principle followed for the preparation of seniority list of Forest Guards requires modification in the light of the changed policy adopted by the Government in the case of ministerial employees. This Court has directed the authorities of the forest department to prepare a seniority list for each district, and pursuant to that, steps were taken by the department. Forest Guards working in Palakkad district filed W.P.(C) 26436/2005 for similar reliefs and this Court, as per Ext.P3 judgment, directed the Chief Conservator of Forests to consider their request. The petitioners are Forest Guards working in Thiruvananthapuram District. According to them, a similar treatment shall be meted out to them also. The second petitioner has filed Ext.P6 representation seeking for the same relief. The representation has been addressed to the first respondent. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that similar requests have been made by other petitioners also. 3. In the circumstances, the first respondent is directed to W.P.(C)No.589/2007 2 consider Ext.P6, take appropriate decision and communicate the same to the second petitioner within two months on receipt of a copy of the judgment. The second petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment and a copy of the writ petition before the first respondent for information and compliance. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. K.K.DENESAN, JUDGE css/ W.P.(C)No.589/2007 3