IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER FRIDAY, THE 19TH DECEMBER 2008 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 31604 of 2008(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- DR.K.V.PADMAKUMAR, KOPLAZHIKATHU KANJAVELI PO., KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) SRI.A.R.DILEEP RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT IN THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR AND REHABILITATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR GENERAL, EMPLOYEES STATE INSUTRANCE CORPORATION, NEW DELHI. 3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, E.S.I. MODEL HOSPITAL ASRAMAM, KOLLAM. 4. MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT, E..S.I. MODEL HOSPITAL, ASRAMAM, KOLLAM. 5. DR.PRABHAKARAN PILLAI, MEDICAL OFFICER (HOMOEO) DEPARTMENT IN CHARGE, ESI CORPORATION, MODEL HOSPITAL, ASRAMAM, KOLLAM. ADV. SRI.P.SANKARANKUTTY NAIR, SC, ESI CORPN FOR R2 TO 4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: A.K. Basheer, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P. (C)No. 31604 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 19th day of December, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner who was admittedly engaged as a Medical Officer in the Homoeo Department of E.S.I Model Hospital, Ashramam, Kollam for a period of 11 months with effect from December 12, 2005 has preferred this writ petition contending, inter alia, that the action of the Department in terminating his service is illegal and arbitrary. Though the above contention was raised by the petitioner before the Corporation, it was repelled by Ext.P11 order dated July 24, 2008. The said order is impugned in this writ petition with a further prayer to issue a writ of mandamus to the respondents to allow him “to discharge the responsibilities of homoeo doctor in Model Hospital, Ashramam, Kollam” . 2. It is not in dispute that the contractual engagement of the petitioner was terminated way back on November 11, 2006. In Ext.P11 the authority concerned had referred to clause No.1 of the agreement executed between the petitioner and the Medical Superintendent which reads thus: “This agreement shall be for a period of 3 months initially, but for a maximum period of 11 (Eleven) months with effect from 12.12.2005 or till such time a regular incumbent report for duty, whichever is WP.31604/2008. 2 earlier.” Petitioner does not have a case that his engagement was not on a contractual basis or that it was not for a specified maximum period not exceeding 11 months. But according to the petitioner, the hospital has been taken over by the ESI Corporation and in the changed circumstances there is dearth of doctors and other staff in the hospital. It is contended by the petitioner that at the time when he was disengaged from duty on November 11, 2006 there was an average intake of 40 outpatients apart from 12 inpatients. He contends that based on the number of patients, there was a requirement of two homoeo doctors in the hospital. But there was only one. According to the petitioner, he had therefore sought for extension of his contractual engagement through Ext.P7. It is in the above circumstances that the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash Ext.P11 order by which his claim for his re-engagement in the hospital was turned down by the Medical Commissioner of Employees' State Insurance Corporation. 3. Having carefully perused Ext.P11 order, I do not find any reason to interfere with the said order. Moreover, the claim made by the petitioner to appoint him in the hospital cannot be entertained under any circumstances. The prayers made in the writ petition are totally misconceived and wholly untenable. The writ petition is devoid of any merit and accordingly it is dismissed in limine. A.K. Basheer Judge. an.