IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2009 / 1ST MAGHA 1930 WA.No. 127 of 2007 -------------------- ( AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.27192/2006 Dated 21/11/2006 ) APPELLANT/ PETITOINER: ------------------------- V.C. ANILKUMAR, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.CHOTHI, VATHEKKADAN HOUSE, KANNANKUZHI, VETTILAPPARA P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.C.G.PREETHA RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE PHARMACEUTICAL CORPORATION (I.M.) KERALA LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, P.O.BOX NO.174, THRISSUR-680 001. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. SHRI BENNY VARGHESE R2 BY ADV. SRI.U.K.RAMAKRISHNAN (SR.) SRI.P.V.LOHITHAKSHAN SMT.P.VIJAYAMMA SMT.UMA GOPINATH SRI.V.KRISHNA MENON THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: KURIAN JOSEPH & P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JJ. ........................................................................ W.A. No. 127 OF 2007 ......................................................................... Dated this the 21st January, 2009 J U D G M E N T Kurian Joseph, J. : The writ petitioner is the appellant. He approached this court apprehending that back door appointments were sought to be made under the second respondent. It is submitted that if regularisation, as proposed in Ext. P3 by the second respondent is made that would amount to violation of Ext. P4 Recruitment Rules. 2. Learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent submits that the proposal was made in the light of the recommendations of the Kerala State Productivity Council, which made a study regarding the fate of the casual labourers , who had been working in the factory for quite long and the work force required in the factory. 3. Whether the appointments are regular, permissible or legal etc., are matters to be considered by the Government. W.A. No. 127 OF 2007 2 The contention taken by the appellant/petitioner that such appointments/regularisation will be in violation of Ext.P4 Recruitment Rules will also be considered by the Government. Therefore, we do not think that any further clarification is required other than what is observed by the learned single Judge in the judgment under appeal since the Government is to consider all these aspects while processing Ext.P3 request by the second respondent. There is thus no merit in the appeal and accordingly it is dismissed. KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk