IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2011 / 1ST ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 25223 of 2011(C) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- MUJEEB U.M., PART TIME CASUAL SWEEPER, KRISHI BHAVAN, PERUVANTHANAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT- 685532. BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695001. 2. DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 3. THE PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, PERUVANTHANAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685532. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.SMITHA SUKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs W.P.(C). NO.25223/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20/03/2007 IN WPC.NO.8266/2007 P2: COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR CREATION OF POST DATED 30/12/2006. P3: COPY OF THE SWEEPING AREA CERTIFICATE DATED 02/12/2006. P4: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 04/09/2009 ISSUED BY THE ENGINEER, PWD BUILDING SECTION, PEERUMEDU. P5: COPY OF G.O.(MS)NO.153/2008 DATED 23/09/2008. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J --------------------------------------------- W.P.(c)No.25223 of 2011 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of September 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P5 order by which the claim of the petitioner for regularisation as a Part Time Sweeper has been found against. The order is dated 23.09.2008. The petitioner who was a casual sweeper at the Krishi Bhavan, Peruvanthanam had earlier filed W.P.(C) No.8266/2007 claiming regularisation as a Part Time Sweeper. This Court, as per judgment dated 20.3.2007 directed the Government to take a decision in the matter and to communicate the same to the petitioner within a period of two months. Accordingly, the Government examined the matter and found that the claim of the petitioner was unsustainable. Though the order is of the year 2008, the petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the same only on 22.9.2011. 2. According to the petitioner, he had entrusted WPC No.25223/2011 2 Ext.P5 to a counsel at Ernakulam and requested him to file a writ petition challenging Ext.P4. Thereafter, whenever the petitioner enquired about the same, he was told that the case was being filed. He was also later given the impression that a writ petition had been filed. It was only in the last week of August 2011 that he was intimated that no case had been filed. 3. I am not satisfied that the above statements are sufficient to explain the inordinate delay of about three years. The name of the counsel who was entrusted with the file or the details of the occasions on which the petitioner had enquired about the progress of the case as well as the other relevant details are conspicuously absent from paragraph-6 of the writ petition. It is evident that the petitioner had accepted Ext.P5 initially, but has had an afterthought after three years and has filed this writ petition. There is absolutely no justification for reopening and re-agitating such stale and closed actions. This writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/-K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE css/ true copy P.S.TO JUDGE WPC No.25223/2011 3