IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 17TH MAY 2010 / 27TH VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 12571 of 2010(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ SIVANKUTTY .K MEENATHATHIL VADAKKETHIL, EDATHITTA PO,KODUMON PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT SWEEPER, GOVERNMENT ITI (WOMEN) MEZHUVELI, ELAVUMTHITTA PO, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.SASIKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY,SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. PRINCIPAL GOVERNMENT ITI WOMEN MEZHUVELI, ELAVUMTHITTA PO PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 3. DIRECTOR OF TRAINING GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. DISTRICT EMPLOYMENT OFFICER, PATHANAMTHITTA. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.ARAVINDKUMAR BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 12571 OF 2010 (V) ===================== Dated this the 17th day of May, 2010 J U D G M E N T Ext.P1 is the order issued by the 2nd respondent appointing the petitioner as Sweeper for 179 days under Rule 9A (1) of KS & SSR. In this writ petition, what he claims is that he is entitled to continue beyond the said period on the basis that his appointment is regular and on the basis of the principles laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Ext.P2 judgment. However, it is now brought to my notice that referring to Ext.P2, similar claim raised by yet another employee was considered by this Court in the judgment in Vasanthi v. State of Kerala (2006(1) KLT 288) and the claim has been negatived. In view of the said judgment, the issue raised in the writ petition is covered against the petitioner, and therefore, the writ petition is only to be dismissed and I do so. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp