IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 17TH DECEMBER 2009 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 36581 of 2009(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ KARTHYAYANI.P.K W/O.GOPALAN, KOMACHAMKANDY MEETHEL HOUSE KAYANNA PO, PERAMBRA, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.M.C.RATNAKARAN SMT.M.R.JAYALATHA RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT ANIMAL HUSBANDRY DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT ANIMAL HUSBANDRY KOZHIKKODE. 4. VETERINARY SURGEON, VETERINARY DISPENSARY, CHAKKITTAPARA, (POST) CHAKKITTAPARA PERMABRA, KOZHIKODE DIST. SR.GOVT.PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 36581 OF 2009 (P) ===================== Dated this the 17th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner submits that she has been working as a casual sweeper in the Veterinary Hospital, Chakkittapara in Kozhikode District since 1/1/2002. She claimed regularization on the strength of GO(P) No.501/2005/Fin dated 25/11/2005. However, her claim has been rejected by the 1st respondent on the ground that besides the petitioner, other persons are also working in the same office as Casual Sweepers. It is challenging this order the writ petition is filed. 2. Petitioner refers to Exts.P3(a) and P3(b), which were stated to have been enclosed by the petitioner along with Ext.P3 application, by which other persons working in the establishment Smt.E.Sarada and Sri.K.M.Gopalan, have relinquished their claim for regularization. It is also pointed out that in similar circumstances, this Court has directed consideration of the claim made by a person as per Ext.P5 judgment in WP(C) No.9007/09. 3. If as stated, petitioner could produce documents evidencing relinquishment of the claim by the other Part Time WPC 36581/09 :2 : Sweepers, that certainly is a valid consideration, which ought to have been taken into account by the 1st respondent when the claim of the petitioner for regularization was taken up for consideration. Ext.P4 discloses that these aspects have not been adverted to. For that reason, I am inclined to think that Ext.P4 order reflects non application of mind calling for interference. 4. Accordingly, Ext.P4 is quashed and the 1st respondent is directed to reconsider the claim of the petitioner for regularization on the basis of GO(P) No.501/2005/Fin dated 25/11/2005 duly adverting to Exts.P3(a) and P3(b) and Ext.P5 judgment in WP(C) No.9007/09. Orders shall be passed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 8 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp