IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2010 / 26TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 18717 of 2010(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. LAKSMAN, S/O.RAMASWAMY, AGED 37, HOUSE NO.21/A NIRMITHI COLONY, PARAMBUZHA P.O., KOTTAYAM. 2. KUMAR, S/O.KARUPPAN, AGED 35, KOSAMATTAM NIRMITHI COLONY, PARAMBUZHA P.O., KOTTAYAM. 3. ANILKUMAR, AGED 36, S/O.BALAKRISHNAN.E.B, KALLUVELIL, KOSAMATTAM COLONY, PARAMBUZHA P.O., KOTTAYAM. 4. VINOD KUMAR, PUTHENPARAMBIL HOUSE, HOUSE NO.20, NETHAJI NAGAR, MULLAMKUZHY COLLECTORATE P.O., KOTTAYAM. 5. JAYA GANESHAN @ GANESHAN.K, AGED 29, S/O.KRISHNAN, HOUSE NO.36A, KOSAMATTAM COLONY, PARAMBUZHA P.O., KOTTAYAM. 6. GURUSWAMY, HOUSE NO.481 C, KOSAMATTAM COLONY, PARAMBUZHA P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.ALEX.M.SCARIA SRI.SAJEEVAN KURUKKUTTIYULLATHIL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE KOTTAYAM MUNICIPAL COUNCIL REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, THE KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY, KOTTAYAM. ADV. SRI.SIBY MATHEW FOR R1 & 2 SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU FOR R1 & 2 SRI.B.PREMNATH (E) FOR R1 & 2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.18717 of 2010 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 16th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioners claim regularisation as CLR workers under the respondent Municipality. Earlier they had approached this Court and pursuant to the directions of this Court, their claim was considered and Exts.P4 & P5 orders have been passed by the respondent Municipality. Exts.P4 & P5 are dated 08/09/2008 and 09/12/2008 respectively and hence the challenge now raised is belated. Further the reason stated for denying the claim for regularisation is that the petitioners created false documents to claim that they were CLR workers. In this writ petition, the petitioners have not produced anything to show that the conclusion of the Municipal Council in Ext.P4, that they have falsified documents to establish their claim, is incorrect. In such circumstances, this Court will not be justified to interfere with Exts.P4 & P5. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg