IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 22ND MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 7130 of 2006(W) ------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. PANKAJAVALLI @ PADMA, 17/604, MUNICIPAL STAFF QUARTERS, BEHIND CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD-1 (SUPERVISOR, ICDS PROJECT OFFICE, PALAKKAD). 2. SOWTHAMBIKA GOPAL, SANTHI NAGAR, NEAR POLICE QUARTERS, KALLEKULANGARA P.O., PALAKKAD (SUPERVISOR, ICDS PROJECT, SREEKRISHNAPURAM). 3. A.R. RAJASREE, 107, SREE RAAM, THADAKA ROAD, EDAYAPALAYAM P.O., COIMBATORE (SUPERVISOR, ICDS PROJECT, PALAKKAD). 4. MAYA THOMAS, PANTHIRUVELIL, THAYYENI P.O., VIA. CHERUPUZHA, KASARAGOD (SUPERVISOR, ICDS PROJECT, IRIKKOOR). BY ADV. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN SRI.K.K.GOPINATHAN NAIR SRI.K.K.RAJEEV RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRSENTED BY THE SECRETARY, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.ANTONY MUKKATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.7130 OF 2006 APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 19.3.2001 IN OP NO.8537/1997 EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 3.9.2001 FILED BY PERSONS SIMILARLY PLACED LIKE THE PETITIONERS EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER G.O.(RT) NO.366/2005/SWD DATED 30.7.2005 EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.E1(3)/16705/0 DATED 16.8.2005 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 1.12.2005 IN W.P.(C) NO.33421/2005 EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF ORDER G.O.(RT) NO.45/2006/SWD DATED 28.1.2006 EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER G.O.(RT) NO.66/2006/SWD DATED 13.2.2006 / TRUE COPY / S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ---------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No. 7130 of 2006 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of February, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioners have filed this Writ Petition aggrieved by denial of appointment to the petitioners as ICDS Supervisors under promotion quota. The petitioners now submit that pursuant to Exhibit P9 judgment, the second respondent has passed Exhibit P10 order giving benefit to a similarly placed employee. The petitioners, therefore, seek a direction to the second respondent to consider the claim of the petitioners for appointment as ICDS Supervisors on contract basis in the light of Exhibit P9 order. Having heard the learned Government Pleader also, I dispose of this Writ Petition with a direction to the second respondent to consider and pass orders on the claim of the petitioners for appointment as ICDS Supervisors on contract basis as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. While doing so, the second respondent shall consider the applicability of Exhibits P9 and P10 to the case of petitioners. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE vgs