IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2010 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 3764 of 2010(U) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- FATHIMA BEEVI.K.A., W/O. T.SHAHUL HAMEED SUBSTITUTE WORKER, PATHANAMTHITTA MUNICIPALITY, PATHANMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN SRI.R.REJI SRI.V.K.SATHYANATHAN SRI.BIPIN B. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE PATHANAMTHITTA MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF URBAN AFFAIRS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVT., DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV.SRI.V.K.SUNIL, STANDING COUNSEL, PATHANAMTHITTA MUNICIPALITY-R1 GOVT.PLEADER SRI.ANTONY MUKKATH- R2,R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO. 3764 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is working as a Substitute Contingent Worker on daily wage basis under the first respondent. Admittedly, the petitioner is included in Ext.P6 seniority list. The contention of the petitioner is that from among the persons included in Ext.P6 seniority list, selectees upto rank No.8 were already been regularised. Despite the existence of vacancies, the claim of the petitioner for regularisation has not been considered. It is the specific case of the petitioner that Ext.P6 list is prepared for the purpose of considering the candidates for regularisation and the very fact that persons up to rank No.8 therein have been regularised would suggest that there can be no impediment in considering the claim of the petitioner for regularisation based on her inclusion in Ext.P6 list. 2. Considering the submission of the petitioner that vacancies are existing and the fact that she is the next eligible person to be regularised from Ext.P6 list, I think it is a matter which requires W.P.(C) NO.3764/2010 2 consideration by the first respondent. To enable the first respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner in its true perspective, the petitioner will be free to submit a representation pointing out the existing vacancies. The petitioner may do so within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. In case such a representation is received, the same shall be considered by the first respondent expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of such a representation from the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO.3764/2010 3 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. W.P.(C). NO. 3764/2010 JUDGMENT 4th March, 2010