IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2010 / 24TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 22128 of 2010(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- CHAURIYAL T.V, AGED 39 S/O. T.J.VAREEDU, THAIPARAMBU,KUMBALANGI,ERNAKULAM BY ADV. SRI.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN SRI.T.V.JAYAKUMAR NAMBOODIRI SRI.THUSHAR NIRMAL SARATHY SRI.M.M.VINOD KUMAR SMT.K.M.RAMYA SRI.P.K.RAKESH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA REP BY SECRETARY,LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.ARAVINDKUMAR BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 22128 OF 2010 (M) ===================== Dated this the 15th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner made an application for compassionate appointment. By Ext.P1 judgment, the 1st respondent was directed to consider the application. It would appear that since the petitioner was a married son of the deceased, in terms of the Rules governing such appointments, the petitioner ought to have produced dependency certificate from the Tahsildar, which the petitioner did not produce. While the matter was thus pending, the petitioner filed a Contempt Petition before this Court complaining of non compliance of the directions in Ext.P1 judgment in WP(C) No.5463/10. When this petition was considered, this Court wanted the respondent to finalise the proceedings on the application. In compliance with the above, respondent has now passed Ext.P5 stating that under the Rules, the petitioner ought to have produced dependency certificate and as the petitioner did not produce the same, the application is rejected. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent WPC No. 22128/10 :2 : themselves had addressed the Tahsildar and the Tahsildar had issued Ext.P3 dependency certificate. According to the petitioner, now that the Tahsildar has issued Ext.P3 certificate, his application needs to be reconsidered. 3. A reading of Ext.P5, the impugned order shows that it was issued on 3/7/2010. The dependency certificate Ext.P3 was issued by the Tahsildar only on 6/7/2010. The reason for rejecting the petitioner's claim is non production of the dependency certificate. 4. Although according to the counsel Ext.P3 has already been produced before the 1st respondent, now that Ext.P5 order has been issued, it is directed that if the petitioner files a fresh representation producing Ext.P3 certificate, the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment, which is rejected by Ext.P5 will be reconsidered and fresh orders will be passed duly adverting to the certificate also. Orders as above shall be passed at any rate within two months of receipt of a representation in the manner as directed above. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp