IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 7TH JUNE 2010 / 17TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 37307 of 2004(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. PADMAKSHAN, THALATHIL HOUSE, P.O.KUNNAMANGALAM, KOZHIKODE. 2. K.K.PAVITHRAN, KINARULLAKANDIYIL HOUSE, P.O.KUNNAMANGALAM, KOZHIKODE. 3. SURESH.O., OTTAPILAKKIL, KUNNAMANGALAM, KOZHIKODE. 4. VIJAYAN, THAROL PURAYIL, KARANTHUR, KUNNAMANGALAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVT., LABOUR (G) DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY & ENVT.(A) DEPARTMENT, REP. BY SECRETARY, STATE OF KERALA, TRIVANDRUM. 3. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CENTRE FOR WATER RESOURCES, DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT, KOZHIKODE. ADV. SRI.R.RAJESH KORMATH FOR R3 SMT.PREETHY KARUNAKARAN FOR R3 SMT.M.R.MINI FOR R3 SMT.SANJANA R.NAIR FOR R3 SRI.JAYKAR.K.S. FOR R3 SRI.RAHUL VARMA FOR R3 SRI.V.S.ROBIN FOR R3 GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX E xt.p1. A Copy of GO(MS) 11/83/LAR DATED 26.2.`1983 Ext.P2. A copy of the certificate showing the surrender of land by the family of the Ist petitioner. Ext.P3. A copy of the certificate showing surrender of land by the family of the 2nd petitoner. Ext.P4. A copy of the certificate showing surrender of land by the family of the 3rd petitioner. Ext.P5. A copy of the certificate showing surrender of land by the family of the 4th petitioner. Ext.P6(a). A copy of the card issued to the Ist petitioner from the Employment Exchange. Ext.P6(b). A copy of the card issued to the 2nd petitioenr from the Employment Exchange. Ext.P6(c). A copy of the card issued to the 3rd petitioner from the Employment Exchange. Ext.P6(c). A copy of the card issued to the 4th petitioner from the Employment Exchange. // true copy // P.S to Judge ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.37307 OF 2004() -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioners are land acquisition evictees/dependents. Their properties were acquired for the purpose of establishment of the 3rd respondent. In Ext.P1 Government Order dated 26.2.1983, preference was allowed to evictees/dependents, who have registered in the employment exchange while making appointment to the 8 categories of posts mentioned therein. Referring to Ext.P6 series the petitioner states that they have got valid registration. It is stated that so far only 18 persons have been appointed by the 3rd respondent and that it was decided by the 3rd respondent to make appointments from other sources. It was thereupon that this writ petition is filed, contending that if recruitment is made from outside, their chances to get employment will be affected. 2. In the counter affidavit filed, the Ist respondent has accepted the contention regarding the preference that has been promised in Ext.P1. It is stated that a list has been prepared and is maintained by the Employment Officer. However, it is also WPC.No. 37307/04 :2 : stated that certain posts were filled up by category change and deploying existing employees of the organization itself. In so far as the decision of he 3rd respondent on 4.12.04 is concerned, it is stated that two employees who were rendered surplas in TBGRI were accommodated by the 3rd respondent and that loss if any caused to the evictees has been made good by adjusting them against the vacancies in TBGRI itself. As far as the claim of the land acquisition evictees/dependents against the 3rd respondent is concerned, the petitioners can claim preference in appointment against 3rd respondent only when the 3rd respondent resorts recruitment from outside. On the other hand, as in this case, if the 3rd respondent resorts to category change or deployment for accommodating excess staff, it is always open to the 3rd respondent to do so and since it does not involve any recruitment from outside, petitioners cannot have any grievance against such action of the 3rd respondent. In the instant case, the 3rd respondent has not resorted to any recruitment from outside to overlook the claim of the petitioners and therefore action of the 3rd respondent in accommodating the persons by category change cannot be challenged. Therefore clarifying that the petitioners can WPC.No. 37307/04 :3 : make claims against the 3rd respondent only as and when recruitment is made from outside, this writ petition is disposed of. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/