IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2011 / 18TH JYAISHTA 1933 WA.No. 1492 of 2010() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.31575/2008 DATED 29/06/2010 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: --------------------------- GRACY THIKUNNUMPURATH, W/O. JOY, AGED 40 YEARS, PART TIME CASUAL SWEEPER, VETERINARY DISPENSARY AT KOLAKKAD, KOLAKKAD (VIA) IRITTY, KANNUR DT. NOW RESIDING AT THIKUNNUMPURATH HOUSE, ODAPUZHA, KOLAKKAD P.O. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.SREEJITH RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------- 1. MEDICAL OFFICER/VETERINARY SURGEON, VETERINARY DISPENSARY KOLAKKAD, IRITTY (VIA), KANNUR DIST. 2. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT A.H.E.), TRIVANDRUM. 3. DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY, KANNUR. 4. SAJI K.U., PART TIME SWEEPER (ADDITIONAL 4TH RESPONDENT), KOLAKKAD VETERINARY DISPENSARY, KOLAKKAD, IRITTY (VIA), KANNUR DIST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. T.B. RAMANI. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.A. 1492/2010 ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE A1: TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER FILED IN THE WRIT PETITION. ANNEXURE A2: TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE A3: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.A. 1047/2005 DATED 7TH JULY, 2008. ANNEXURE A4: TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(P) No. 61/10/FIN.DT. 9.2.10 ISSUED BY FINANCE DEPARTMENT. ANNEXURE A5: TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.. (P) NO. 500/03 DT. 25.9.2003. ANNEXURE A6: TRUE COPY OF THEG.O.(P) NO. 390/03/FIN. DATED 17.7.2003. ANNEXURE A7: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE DISTRICT ANIMAL HUSBANDRY OFFICER DATED 18.10.07. RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL. // TRUE COPY // P.S. TO JUDGE. KNC/- C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & P.S. GOPINATHAN, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = W.A. NO. 1492 OF 2010 = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE, 2011. J U D G M E N T C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Pleader. The appellant's prayer for regularisation of service was declined by the respondents consequent upon which the writ petition was filed. The learned Single Judge noticed that in the vacancy of a part- time sweeper, four persons were engaged intermittently and the appellant is one of them. The learned Single Judge found that the Government orders relied on by the appellant do not entitle her for employment. Before us, the appellant repeated the same arguments. 2. The main contention to be considered is whether the appellant was in service during 2005 when the Government order came for regularisation of those in continuous service, as on the date of notification. From the details furnished by the learned Government Pleader, it is clear that some other person was working as sweeper in the office though the appellant was working previously and subsequently in the same office. The W.A. 1492/2010 2 post was already filled up with another person through Employment Exchange and he is now promoted as attender. The learned Government Pleader submitted that as on today, the work is entrusted to Kudumbasree and the same arrangement will continue until somebody reported from Employment Exchange joins duty. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Government orders entitle the appellant for regularisation. We do not find the Government Order relied on by the appellant holds good for her because she was not in service as on the relevant date mentioned in the order. Consequently, the writ appeal fails and is dismissed. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, (JUDGE) P.S. GOPINATHAN, (JUDGE) KNC/-