IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2011 / 1ST ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 17911 of 2011(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- BIJINA.M.T,AJAY BHAVAN,P.O.CHUZHALI, VALAYAM,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.BABY RESPONDENT: --------------- INSTITUTE OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, PRAJOE TOWERS,VAZHUTHACAUD,TRIVANDRUM-695014, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR. ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED FOR R THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 17911 of 2011(L) APPENDIX EXT.P1: A TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 27.10.2005 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT EXT.P2: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT DATED 31.3.2006 EXT.P3: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT DATED 30.12.2006 EXT.P4: A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WRIT APPEAL NO. 1638/2010 DATED 15.3.2011 RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL TRUE COPY P.A TO JUDGE jma T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.17911 of 2011 -------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 23rd DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner herein was appointed as a Watcher-cum-Peon on daily wages from 6.10.2005 in the College of Applied Sciences, Nadapuram, Kozhikode District for a period of 179 days or till regular hand joins duty whichever is earlier, as per Exhibit P1 order. It is averred in paragraph No.1 of the Writ Petition that the petitioner continued as such from time to time on similar arrangements. 2. The petitioner claims continuance in the light of Exhibit P4 judgment of this Court in favour of certain other similarly placed daily rated employees. It is pointed out that they have been allowed to continue on temporary basis on a consolidated pay of Rs.6,000/- per month. The contention taken by the petitioner is that she has already completed five years of service. 3. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 4. The 3rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit. It is W.P.(C)No.17911/11 -2- mentioned in the counter affidavit that already a ranked list has been published for making regular appointment. The claim for regularisation raised by the petitioner is also disputed. 5. Therefore, at this stage, this Court can only direct the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner, if any, for continuance of the ad hoc appointment. I am not expressing anything regarding the plea that the petitioner's case is similar to the parties in Exhibit P4 judgment. It is also made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the matter. There will be a direction to the respondents to take appropriate decision in the matter within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. Sd/-(T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) dsn