IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2009 / 20TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 31280 of 2008(W) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- PUSHPAKARAN, AGED 44 YEARS, ERICALI HOUSE, CHERPU WEST.P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT, WORKING AS SWEEPER, VILLAGE OFFICE, ARATTUPUZHA. BY ADV. MR.JIJO PAUL RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, THRISSUR. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ARATTUPUZHA. * ADDL. R4 IMPLEADED ADDL. R4: VILASINI, D/O.VELIYATHU VELAYUDHAN, PALLISSERY, ARATTUPUZHA P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. * ADDITIONAL RESPONDENT NO.4 IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DATED 12/12/2008 IN I.A.15941/2008. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.P. NANDAKUMAR. ADDL.R4 BY ADV. MR.V.M. KRISHNAKUMAR, SMT.P.R. REENA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 31280/2008-W APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE ELITE MISSION HOSPITAL, THRISSUR DATED 08/03/2008. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT NO.A4- 3570/2008 DATED 25/03/2008. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT AS NO.A4- 59920/07 DATED 23/11/2007 TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE G.O.(P)NO.501/2005/FIN. DATED 25/11/2005 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER PWD, BUILDINGS SECTION NO.2, AYYANTHOLE DATED 30/11/2007. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AS NO.A1- 28574/04 DATED 22/03/2008. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS & ANNEXURE: ANNEXURE R2(a): COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.A1-28574/04(1) DATED 20/10/2008. EXT.R1(a): COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 20/10/2008 ISSUED BY THRISSUR TAHSILDAR. EXT.R1(b): COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 22/03/2008 ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P.(C) No. 31280 of 2008-W =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 10th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Heard Sri Jijo Paul, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. N. Nandakumar, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and Sri. V.M. Krishnakumar, the learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent. 2. The petitioner, who was engaged as Casual Sweeper in Village Office, Arattupuzha when it was established on 22-12-2006, has filed this writ petition contending that he is entitled to continue in service as Casual Sweeper in that office and that the Tahsildar, Thrissur has no right to conduct a selection for engaging a Casual Sweeper in Village Office, Arattupuzha. 3. The pleadings disclose that Village Office, Arattpuzha was established in December 2006, long after G.O.(P) No.501/2005 /Fin. dated 25.11.2005 was issued. The sweeping area of Village Office, Arattupuzha is admittedly below 100 Sq. mts. Therefore, on the terms of the aforesaid Government order. a post of Part-time Contingent Sweeper cannot be created. As per the terms of the aforesaid Government order, only a casual W.P.(C) No. 31280/08 2 sweeper can be engaged without creating a post. Though paragraph 14 of the Government order dated 25.11.2005 permits the Head of Office to engage a casual sweeper without creating a post, the Tahsildar, Thrissur initiated steps to engage a Causal Sweeper by inviting applications from persons residing in Arattupuzha Village and nearby localities. Pursuant to the said application, the petitioner and two others, including the additional fourth respondent applied. The fourth respondent who belongs to a Scheduled Caste community and is a spinster aged 47 years was selected and engaged as Casual Sweeper. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Head of Office alone could have engaged a casual sweeper and that the Tahsildar had no authority to engage a Casual Sweeper. In my opinion, the action of the Tahsildar cannot be faulted. The Tahsildar had, after inviting applications (the petitioner had also applied) conducted a selection and taking note of the fact that the additional fourth respondent is a spinster belonging to a Schedule Caste community and the petitioner is otherwise gainfully employed decided to engage her as Causal Sweeper. In my opinion, in these circumstances, the action of the Tahsildar in choosing the additional fourth respondent as the Casual Sweeper to be engaged in Village Office, Arattupuzha cannot be said to be arbitrary or in any way illegal. I W.P.(C) No. 31280/08 3 therefore find no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. If the petitioner has not been paid emoluments for the period during which he had worked as Casual Sweeper, the same shall be disbursed within one month from the date on which the petitioner produces a certified copy of this judgment before the Village Officer Arattupuzha Village. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. mn.