IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DECEMBER 2009 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 36411 of 2009(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SREELATHA.V, VIJAYAMANDIRAM,PALOTTUVILA,MALAYINKEEZHU.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.A.AHZAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. MANAGING DIRECTOR,KERALA STATE FILM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,CHALACHITRA KALABHAVAN, VAZHUTHACAUD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. MS.ANU SIVARAMAN, GOVT.PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.36411 of 2009 (V) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 16th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is working as a Typist in the 2nd respondent establishment on daily wages since 1988. She claimed regularisation and her claim was ordered to be considered by the 2nd respondent by judgment of this Court in WP(C) No.22961/2009. Accordingly, the matter was considered and Ext.P6 is the proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent dated 20/11/2009. In Ext.P6 it is stated that “in the case of Smt.Sreelatha, she satisfies the condition that she has been continuing in the post of Typist for more than 10 years, but not under the cover of Court order. On verification of her appointment file, prima-facie, it is seen that she was appointed against a sanctioned post of Typist.” Proceeding further it is stated thus : “Hence in view of the facts stated above and in compliance with the judgment dated 17th September 2009 of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in WP(C) No.22961/2009 (M), the representation of Smt.Sreelatha V. is disposed of directing her to pursue and to await the decision of the Government in the proposal sent by the WP(C) No.36411/2009 -2- KSFDC on 31/03/2006 for regularization of 56 employees including herself.” 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the concluding portion of Ext.P6, where the 2nd respondent has decided to await orders of the 1st respondent for regularising the services of the petitioner. 3. If under the Articles or other rules of the 2nd respondent, such a procedure is prescribed, the petitioner cannot take objection to the view taken in Ext.P6. However, from Ext.P6 itself, it is seen that a proposal in this behalf has already been sent by the 2nd respondent to the 1st respondent as early as on 31/03/2006. Therefore, it is for the 1st respondent to take a final decision on the proposal thus made. 4. Having regard to the above, I dispose of the writ petition directing the 1st respondent to pass orders on the proposal submitted by the 2nd respondent on 31/03/2006 for regularising the employees including the petitioner, taking note of the statement in Ext.P6 that the petitioner is eligible for regularisation. Orders shall be passed on the proposal as above as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within eight weeks of production of a copy of this judgment, along with a copy of this writ petition. WP(C) No.36411/2009 -3- The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment, along with a copy of this writ petition before the 1st respondent for compliance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg