IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 29TH JANUARY 2010 / 9TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 2967 of 2010(U) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.P.SIVASANKARAN, S/O.VELAYUDHAN (LATE) KELEPPATT PARAMBIL HOUSE, PURATHUR (P.O) B.P.ANGADI, MALAPPURAM. BY ADVS. SRI.P.SANJAY SMT.A.PARVATHI MENON SRI.BIJU MEENATOOR SRI.RAJAN KUDUMBATHIL SRI.GLEN ANTONY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER, HINDU RELIGIOUS & CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS(HR&CE),(ADMN.)DEPARTMENT, CALICUT. 2. SREE KADAMPUZHA BHAGAVATHI DEVASWOM TRUSTEE BOARD, KADAMPUZHA, MALAPPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SREE KADAMPUZHA BHAGAVATHI DEVASWOM KADAMPUZHA POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.NANDA KUMAR-R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 2967 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of January, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner had worked as Clerk/Attender on a temporary basis under the third respondent. Based on the said provisional service, he seeks a declaration that he is entitled to get regularised in the service of the third respondent. According to him, this Court as per Ext.P1 judgment directed to consider the claim of the the petitioners therein, who are similarly situated and, therefore, the respondents should have considered his claim also, in the light of Ext.P1. The petitioner, therefore, approached the third respondent through Ext. P2 representation. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite receipt of Ext.P2 representation, no action has been taken thereon. The contention of the petitioner is that he is entitled for regularisation, based on the provisional service put in by him. It is further contended that several vacancies are available and casual employees are being engaged. 2. Taking into consideration the said circumstances as well as W.P.(C) NO. 2967/2010 2 the nature of the direction issued as per Ext.P1, I think it is only appropriate for the second respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner in terms of Ext.P1. It is ordered accordingly. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) sp/ W.P.(C) NO. 2967/2010 3 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. W.P.(C) NO. 2967/2010 JUDGMENT 29th January, 2010