IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 22ND JUNE 2010 / 1ST ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 19410 of 2010(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- N.SARAYUDEVI, PART TIME SWEEPER, KRISHNAPURAM PALACE MUSEUM, KAYAMKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, KRISHNA PURAM PALACE MUSEUM, KAYAMKULAM. 4. DISTRICT EMPLOYMENT OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.ARAVINDKUMAR BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J ------------------- W.P.(C).19410/2010 -------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner had registered her name with the 4th respondent Employment Exchange. In response to a requisition made by the 3rd respondent for appointment to the post of Part Time Sweeper, her name was also sponsored. Ultimately two persons were appointed as Part Time Sweepers and one among them is the petitioner. Petitioner now apprehends that on the basis of Ext.P4 proceedings, she is likely to be terminated. It is with this apprehension the writ petition is filed. 2. A reading of Ext.P4 shows that the 3rd respondent has issued the said proceedings on the basis that in the matter of appointing Part Time Sweepers, the reservation rules have not been complied with. It is stated that therefore, the 2nd person among the two already appointed, should be terminated and in her place, a candidate from the reserved category should be appointed. W.P.(C).19410/10 2 3. Petitioner's contention that she belongs to Ezhava community and the other person appointed along with her belongs to Viswakarma community and therefore, she has a superior claim for retention in service. It is also her case that she is a widow of 44 years and such consideration should also have been given to her. 4. Be that as it may, it is a fact that the petitioner has been continuing as Part Time Sweeper for the last 11 months. Therefore, if her service is to be dispensed with, it can be only after issuing notice to the petitioner and after giving her an opportunity to make her representation in the matter. Admittedly this has not been done. 5. Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition directing that if the 3rd respondent is to take action for terminating the service of the petitioner in pursuance to Ext.P4, 3rd respondent shall issue notice to the petitioner and give her an opportunity to make her representation in the matter. It is only after passing an order in W.P.(C).19410/10 3 the manner as directed above, respondents will dispense with the service of the petitioner and until then, petitioner shall be retained in service. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with the copy of this writ petition before respondents 2 and 3 for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs