IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2008 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 8750 of 2008(N) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ K.S.JAYAN KUNNATH HOUSE, THONGALOOR THRISSUR-680501. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.BOSE SRI.VINOD MADHAVAN SMT.NISHA BOSE RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. \ 2. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM TRIVANDRUM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER OF HEALTH, THRISSUR. 4. THE DISTRICT OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, THRISSUR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BEJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI,J. ========================= W.P.(C)NO. 8750 OF 2008 ========================= Dated this the 17th day of March 2008 JUDGMENT On advice by the PSC, the petitioner was appointed as Junior Health Inspector Grade II in Thrissur District. Subsequently his advice was cancelled, on the premise that the petitioner had applied for the same post in Ernakulam District also. The cancellation of the advice was challenged before this Court in O.P.12226/2000 which was disposed of under Ext.P5 judgment directing the PSC to reconsider the issue. PSC passed a fresh order as Ext.P7. Same was challenged before this Court in O.P.No.745/2001. A similar issue came to be considered by a Division Bench in O.P.17050/2000 which was disposed of requiring the petitioner therein to apply before the government invoking Rule 39 of Part II of KS&SSR. Apparently this resulted in Ext.P9 order in favour of the petitioners therein, stated to be similarly situated to the petitioner herein. By Ext.P9, government allowed five staff nurses in the Health Services Department to remain in service in supersession of the cancellation of the W.P.(C)8750/2008 2 advice of the PSC, for regularisation. Petitioner submits that a similar benefit should be afforded to him and Ext.P8 representation is pending consideration before the government. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned government pleader. In my view if the petitioner's case is similar to that of the case considered in Ext.P9, there is no reason why a similar treatment should not be meted out to the petitioner. 4. In the result, this writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P8. Government shall consider whether it is appropriate to invoke its power under Rule 39 of Part II of KS&SSR. Orders on Ext.P8 shall be passed in the light of Ext.P9, as early as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. This judgment shall be produced before the first respondent along with a copy of the writ petition. V.GIRI, JUDGE css/ W.P.(C)8750/2008 3