IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH OCTOBER 2011 / 27TH ASWINA 1933 WA.No. 1535 of 2011() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.36231/2009 Dated 09/09/2010 APPELLANTPETITIONER: SHYLABEEVI.M.K, AGED 43 YEARS, W/O.KAMARUDEEN, LAST GRADE SERVANT, COLLEGE OF APPLIED SCIENCE (UNDER IHRD), MALLAPPILLY. BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: 1. INSTITUTE OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, PRAJOE TOWER, VAZHUTHAKKAD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.- 695 014. 2. THE DIRECTOR, INSTITUTE OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, PRAJOE TOWER, VAZHUTHAKKAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.- 695 014. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.-695 001. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. GEORGE MECHERIL. S.C. FOR IHRD SRI. M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.A. 1535/2011 APPENDIX ANNEXURE-A TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 19.3.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE 2NDC RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE A(1) ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF ANNEXURE – A.NNEXURE – A. // TRUE COPY // P.S. TO JUDGE. KNC/- C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, Ag. C.J. & P.S. GOPINATHAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = C.M. APPLN. 899/2011 & W.A. 1535/ 2011 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 19TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2011. J U D G M E N T C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J. This is an appeal filed with considerable delay against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dismissing the claim by the petitioner for regularization in service under the second respondent. When the writ appeal came up for admission, counsel for the appellant produced judgment in W.A. 1616 of 2010 dated 15.3.2011 of a Division Bench of this Court, where the Division Bench, based on the contention made by the second respondent, disposed of the writ appeal stating that the appellants in that case – 18 in number, could also apply for regularization in terms of re- employment of a few persons already done by the second respondent. It is seen from the judgment that the second respondent has re-employed those employees earlier engaged on ad hoc basis on a consolidated monthly pay of Rs. 6,000/-. The appellant's case is that she also served for a long period with the second respondent as an ad hoc/casual employee and so much so, she also is entitled to the same relief as granted to the appellants in the C.M. APPLN. 899 & W.A. 1535/2011 2 above writ appeal. If the appellant is similarly placed as in the case of others being considered for employment, then we see no reason why second respondent should deny appointment to the appellant. If post to be filled up are not enough to cover the whole of the employees claiming employment under the second respondent, then the second respondent has to conduct a selection procedure among the whole applicants based on seniority, qualification and other consideration and make selection. Accordingly, we condone the delay in filing the writ appeal and dispose of the writ appeal with direction to the second respondent to follow the judgment in W.A. 1616/2010, if appellant is similarly placed as the appellants in that case and if there exists any vacancy. Appellant can along with a copy of this judgment and a copy of the judgment in W.A. 1616 of 2010 make an application before the second respondent for his consideration, if not already made. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, (Ag. CHIEF JUSTICE) P.S. GOPINATHAN, (JUDGE) KNC/-