IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 18TH MAY 2010 / 28TH VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 15080 of 2010(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- AJAYAKUMAR.S.S. S/O. SUKUMARAN NAIR, KOVILVILAVEEDU, KARUTHUMMOODU CHETTACHAL.P.O., VITHURA, TRIVANDRUM-695551. BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. SMT.POOJA SURENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER OF HEALTH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT, MENTAL HEALTH CENTRE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. MR.ANTONY MUKKATH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.15080 of 2010 (H) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 18th day of May, 2010 J U D G M E N T By Ext.P1 order dated 17/10/2002, the petitioner was appointed as a Senior Assistant on daily wages. On 28/07/2006 he was terminated. It would appear that certain other employees were also terminated and they approached this Court by filing WP() No.37556/2007. It is to be noticed that the petitioner did not challenge his termination any time before. In the aforesaid writ petition, Ext.P11 order was passed directing to maintain status quo as regards the services of the petitioners therein. Accordingly, they were continued. The petitioner now submits that those persons who were continued in service are now considered for regularisation, and therefore, he too has made Ext.P12 representation dated 15/03/2010 praying that he also may be considered for regularisation. In this writ petition he seeks consideration of Ext.P12. Question of regularisation can arise only from a person who is WP(C) No.15080/2010 -2- already in service. In this case, as can be seen from the facts, the petitioner's services were terminated way back in 2006, and unlike the petitioners in WP(C) No.37556/2007, the petitioner herein did not challenge the said termination. In such a situation, he can have no claim for regaularisation at this belated stage. In view of the above, I am not persuaded to entertain the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg