IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 5TH MARCH 2010 / 14TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 5322 of 2010(M) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------- V.N.SURESAN,VADAKKE NAIUPURAPPATTIL, THIMIRI.P.O,KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.PAREETH RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT WATER RESOURCES (GROUND WATER) DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR GROUND WATER DEPARTMENT, PATTOM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DISTRICT OFFICER,GROUND WATER DEPARTMENT DISTRICT OFFICE,KANNUR. BY GOVT. PLEADER, SRI.ANTONY MUKKATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 5322 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 5th day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner had been continuing as CLR worker under the 3rd respondent since 19.05.92. According to the petitioner, he had put in CLR service of more than 16 years. In the matter of appointment of CLR worker as SLR worker under the Ground Water Department, a list has been prepared as is evident from Ext.P3. In Ext.P3 the name of the petitioner is shown at SL No.176. The claim of the petitioner is that in view of the inclusion in the said list and also on the fact that he had put in more than 16 years of service, he is entitled to get appointment as SLR. 2. But, the learned Government Pleader on instructions submitted that the petitioner is not in service since 01.11.08 and therefore he cannot claim for appointment based on his inclusion in Ext.P3. 3. The contention of the petitioner is that his absence was solely on account of his ailment as is evident from Exts.P5 and P5 W.P.(C)No. 5322 OF 2010 -:2:- (a). It is further submitted that pointing out all these facts, he had already approached the 1st respondent by filing Ext.P7. In the light of the submission made by the learned Government Pleader, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the 1st respondent may be directed to consider Ext.P7 which is now pending before it. Therefore, without making any observation as to the merits of the rival contentions, I am disposing of this writ petition with direction to the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P7 submitted by the petitioner expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that, an opportunity of being heard is to be afforded to the petitioner before passing orders as directed. C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE ttb