IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 23RD DECEMBER 2011 / 2ND POUSHA 1933 WP(C).No. 13641 of 2006(Y) ----------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.C.SUDHA, AGED 40 YEARS, W/O.T.R.THANKAPPAN, RESIDING AT THAZHATHUKACHIRA, RAMAPURAM BAZAR.P.O, VELLILAPPILLY VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.MADHU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, OFFICE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD., THRICHUR. 2. THE MANAGER, KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD., MUNDAKKAYAM BRANCH, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR FOR R1 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.NOUSHAD THOTTATHIL. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/01/2012, THE COURT ON 23/12/2011 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.C. NO. 13641 of 2006 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT. P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 9.2.2005 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 19.8.2005 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENTDATED 1.10.2005. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 20.12.2005 AND BEARING NO.GO(MS) NO.162/05/TD. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 4.1.2006 AND BEARING REFERENCE NO.4380. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 27.4.2006 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION TO THE ABOVE EFFECT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT THROUGH PROPER CHANNEL DATED 2.5.2006. EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 2.5.2006 FORWARDED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P9 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 4.1.2006. EXT.P10 TRUE COPY OF THE SALARY SLIP FOR THE MONTH OF MARCH 2006. EXT.P11 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 4.5.2006 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. WPC 13641 OF 2006 EXT.P12 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 4.5.2006 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P13 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 6.5.2006. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL [ True copy ] P.S. to Judge. ul/- S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 13641 of 2006 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 23rd day of December, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner was appointed as a part-time sweeper in the office of the Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd., at Nedumkandam with effect from 1.10.2005. While working so, by Ext.P4 Government order, the Government permitted the KSFE to regularise the services of part-time sweepers engaged in KSFE between 30.10.2000 and 31.8.2005. Pursuant to the same, by Ext.P5 order, the petitioner's services as part-time sweeper were regularised. Later on, by Ext.P6 dated 27.4.2010, the petitioner was directed to explain why the petitioner's wrong regularisation of service should not be cancelled and the petitioner's name should not be deleted from the list of employees to be regularised in service. The petitioner submitted Ext.P7 representation. Subsequently, by Ext.P13 order dated 6.5.2006, the services of the petitioner were dispensed with. The petitioner is challenging the same seeking the following reliefs: “i. Issue a writ of certiorari and quash Ext.P13 proceedings of the 1st respondent. ii. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 3rd respondent to consider and take appropriate action on Ext.P12 representation submitted by the petitioner before the 3rd respondent. iii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 1st respondent to allow the petitioner to continue in service of the 1st respondent as part time service. iv. Declare that Ext.P13 proceeding of the 1st respondent is illegal.” W.P(C) No. 13641 of 2006 -: 2 :- The petitioner's contention is that actually the recruitment of the petitioner was prior to 31.8.2005 and only because at the relevant time, the branch offices at Nedumkandam and Mundakayam were not functioning fully that the petitioner was required to join duty only with effect from 1.10.2005. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the petitioner is entitled to regularisation in service in accordance with Ext.P4 order. 2. I have heard the parties. As is clear from Ext.P4, the regularisation in service was permitted by the Government order only to those part- time sweepers engaged between 30.10.2000 and 31.8.2005. Admittedly, the petitioner joined duty on 1.10.2005, well beyond 31.8.2005. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to regularisation in service as per Ext.P4 Government order. Consequently, there is no merit in the contentions of the petitioner and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/