IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JANUARY 2008 / 3RD MAGHA 1929 OP.No. 3586 of 1999(B) ------------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------------- K. LEELA, AGED 50, D/O. KALYANI, DUSTING OPERATOR, FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA DIST. OFFICE, TRIVANDRUM, RESIDING AT T.C. 42/1387, SREEVARAHAM, VALLAKKADAVU, MUTTUTHARA THIRUVANANTHAPURAM FROM THAZHATTIL VEEDU, CHANIMUDAMBU, MUTTATHARA, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.P.S.RAMESH KUMAR SMT.ANNAMMA ABRAHAM RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF THE FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, 16/20 BORAKHAMBA LANE, NEW DELHI- 1. 2. THE ZONAL MANAGER, FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, MADRAS- 6. 3. THE DISTRICT MANAGER, FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, DIST. OFFICE, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN, SC, FCI THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP NO. 6086/1999 IN OP NO. 3586/1999 B. DISMISSED 23/01/2008. SD/- K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1. COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE R3 TO THE PETITIONER VIDE NO. A1(1) 89/DMI DT. 18/4/69. EXT.P2. COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 11/5/73 ADDRESSED TO THE REGIONAL MANAGER FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, TRIVANDRUM. EXT.P3. COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE R4 DATED 09/03/90. EXT.P4. COPY OF THE COMMUNITY CERTIFICATE VIDE NO. 16812/92 DATED 22/10/92. EXT.P5. COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S REPRESENTATION DT. 20/09/93 TO THE R2. EXT.P6. COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA NEWDELHI DT. 17/06/96. EXT.P7. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP NO. 1805/97 M DT. 30/1/97. EXT.P8. COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER NO. 30(5) 97-E11/ZE DT. 4/6/97. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL. True copy tga K. M. JOSEPH, J. --------------------------------- O.P NO. 3586 OF 1999 B ---------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd January, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner challenges Exts.P1 to P6 and P8 and seeks to quash Ext.P8. A mandamus is sought to regularise the appointment of the petitioner as Full Time Sweeper under the third respondent from the date of Ext.P2 after including her name in the Scheduled Tribe roster of appointment and give promotion under the Scheduled Tribe quota retrospectively with effect from the date of Ext.P2 and to disburse the consequential arrears of salary and other benefits. 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: Petitioner was temporarily appointed as Full Time Sweeper on a monthly remuneration of Rs.60/= by the third respondent. Ext.P1 is the appointment order. Ext.P2 is a communication relied on by the petitioner. It is stated in Ext.P2 that at present six Sweepers are working in full time and they include the petitioner. It was stated that their case may be considered OP NO.3586/99 B 2 andaction taken for regularisation of their appointment. Ext.P2 is dated 11.5.1973. By Ext.P3, the appointment of the petitioner was regularised on 9.3.1990. In Ext.P3, petitioner was called upon to produce certain documents. Ext.P4 is the community Certificate. Petitioner came to be promoted. Petitioner was asked to intimate factual position that she belongs to Scheduled Tribe community. She represented by Ext.P5 seeking to refix her seniority from 18.4.1969 on the basis of Ext.P4. Due to the inaction, she approached this Court and this Court directed consideration of the representation. The first respondent has passed Ext.P8 rejecting the claim. According to petitioner, she is a full time Sweeper and not a casual employee. It is the further case of the petitioner that she belonged to Scheduled Tribe community and her appointment should have been regularised and there are vacancies to accommodate the petitioner right from the date of Ext.P2 and she should have been included in the SC/ST roster of appointment from the date of Ext.P2. The finding in Ext.P8 is that the petitioner was a OP NO.3586/99 B 3 temporary Sweeper. It was noticed that the petitioner had sought regularisation only in the year 1993 with effect from 1973, ie. nearly 20 years prior to the representation. I would think that, having regard to the concept of regularisation and the passage of time between the date of Ext.P2 and the date of the representation made by her in 1993, petitioner is not entitled to the benefit. Hence the Original Petition is dismissed. K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk. K. M. JOSEPH, J. O.P NO. 3586 OF 1999 B JUDGMENT 23rd January, 2008.