IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 2ND JULY 2010 / 11TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 20557 of 2010(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- R.MINIMOL,HEAD CLERK/REVENUE INSPECTOR, ALAPPUZHA MUNICIPALITY, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. SMT.POOJA SURENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DFIRECTOR OF URBAN AFFAIRS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF COCHIN, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI. ADV. SRI.N.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR FOR R3 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. ARAVINDKUMAR BABU SC SRI. S. RAMESH BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J ------------------- W.P.(C).20557/2010 -------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner was an employee of the Cochin Corporation. By Ext.P6 order, she was promoted as Head Clerk and was posted in Alappuzha. Claiming benefit of Exts.P4 ad P5 Government Orders, providing for posting at the same station for inter caste married couples, she made representations. In Ext.P7 judgment rendered in W.P.(C).5877/2010, this Court directed consideration of her claims. Accordingly, her claim was considered and was rejected by Ext.P8 order. It is challenging Ext.P8 order, this writ petition is filed. 2. Although in Ext.P8 order, it has been stated that Exts.P4 and P5 do not apply to the case of the petitioner, fact remains that going by the petitioner's own averments, petitioner's husband is not a person who has employment either in the State Government or Central Government or in any other Public Sector undertaking. Exts.P4 and P5 Government Orders provide W.P.(C).20557/10 2 posting in same station for intercaste married couple, but the benefit of these orders will be available only to the employees of State Government, Central Government or a Public Sector Undertaking. On a plain reading of Exts.P4 and P5 itself, it is obvious that the petitioner cannot claim the benefit of these orders. For that reason, I see no reason to entertain the challenge against Ext.P8, even if the reasons stated therein are not appealing. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs