IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2010 / 25TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 22117 of 2010(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. NAZEERA S., AZHANKAL VEEDU, PUTHIYATHURA, PUTHIYATHURA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 2. K.JALAJAMMA, MARIKKUNNATHU VEEDU, NELLIMUKKU P.O., KUZHIMATHICADU, KOTTARAKKARA. 3. C.CHANDRAN, TC 21/1987, PADIPPURA VEEDU, MELEMANGATTUKONAM, NEDUMANGADU, KARAMANA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 002. 4. AJITHAKUMARY T., THALAKATTUVELI, S.ARYAD, AVALAKUNNU P.O., KOMALAPURAM, ALLEPPEY DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE PRINCIPAL, INDUSTRIAL TRAINING INSTITUTE, DHANUVACHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 503. ADDL.RESPONDENTS 4 & 5 R4. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM R5. EMPLOYMENT OFFICER, DISTRICT EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY G.P.SRI.ARAVIND KUMAR BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.22117 of 2010 (L) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 16th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioners were sponsored by the Additional 5th respondent and were appointed by the 3rd respondent as Full Time Sweepers, as per Ext.P1 order dated 07/12/2009. The period for which they were appointed is 179 days. In this writ petition, they contend for the position that in terms of the provisions contained in Ext.P4 Special Rules, their appointment should be treated as regular. 2. However, a reading of Ext.P4 Special Rules relied on by the petitioners show that the appointing authority designated in the Special Rules is the District Collector. As against this, by Ext.P1 order, the petitioners were appointed by the 3rd respondent, who is not the appointing authority. Therefore the appointment of the petitioners evidenced by Ext.P1 order cannot be taken as regular appointment in order to contend that the period of 179 days specified in Ext.P1 is erroneous and that they should be regularly appointed. In that view of the matter, the claim raised is only to be WP(C) No.22117/2010 -2- rejected. At this stage, the petitioners contend that for the reason that they were appointed by Ext.P1, they should not be deprived of their chances for being sponsored in future as and when requisitions are made to the Additional 5th respondent. It is made clear that it will be open to the petitioners to represent for this relief, in which event, the Additional 5th respondent shall take necessary action in accordance with the Rules. This writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg