IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2011 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1932 WA.No. 1125 of 2008 --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.5484/2008 Dated 28/02/2008 .................... APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS: ------------------------------ 1. TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM WATCHERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION (REG NO.T.2186/2005) REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, V.S.ANILKUMAR (RESIDING AT KODLVILAKKATHU VEEUD, THIRUVALLAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. G.SREEKUMAR, WATCHER, PALKULANGARA DEVASWOM,(MELE CHAMATHOTTATHU VEEDU, MULLOOR P.O., VIZHINJAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM) BY ADV. SRI.K.KARTHIKEYA PANICKER SMT.DAYA K. PANICKER RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:- ---------------------------------- 1. THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEVASWOM BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.G.PARAMESWARA PANICKER, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.D.SREEKUMAR, SC, TDB SRI.P.GOPAL THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.Chelameswar, CJ. & P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A.No. 1125 OF 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 18th day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT J.Chelameswar, CJ. Aggrieved by judgment dated 28.02.2008 in W.P. (C) No.5484 of 2008, the unsuccessful petitioners preferred the present appeal. 2. The appellants are employed by the first respondent Board as Watchers. The appellants made a representation before the respondents stating that the nature and duties of the Watcher are identical with the duties of Guards and the only difference being that the Watchers are put to more stringent duties than guards. The further case of the appellant is that the post of 'Guard' is included in the Establishment Wing of the service of the respondent Board. But the post of Watcher is included in the Contingent Wing of the Board and therefore prayed that the post of Watcher also be included in the Establishment Wing. 3. By decision dated 09.01.2008, the WA No.1125 of 2008 -:2:- representation was rejected by the 1st respondent. Hence the petitioner approached this Court by way of the abovementioned writ petition. 4. By the judgment under appeal, the writ petition was dismissed. The learned Judge came to the conclusion that Ext.P3 recorded the reasons for not shifting the post of Watcher to the Establishment Wing, which reasons can not be faulted and therefore dismissed the writ petition. We see no reason to take a different view than the one taken by the learned Judge in the judgment under appeal. Therefore, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice. P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Judge. ttb WA No.1125 of 2008 -:3:-