IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 8TH OCTOBER 2010 / 16TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 28449 of 2010(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- N.SUDHA MONY, W/O.KRITHIVASAN,SWEEPER, KERALA UNIVERSITY CENTRE FOR TEACHERS EDUCATION (KUCTE),ANCHAL,KOLLAM,RESIDING AT K.S.BHAVAN, NETTAYAM,NEDIYARA PO, ANCHAL,KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL SRI.C.SINOY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR,PALAYAM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR,KERALA UNIVERSITY, PALAYAM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE PRINCIPAL,KERALA UNIVERSITY CENTRE FOR TEACHERS EDUCATION(KUCTE),ANCHAL,KOLLAM. ADV. SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, SC, KERALA UTY. FOR R1 & 2 BY G.P.SMT.NISHA BOSE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C).No.28449 OF 2010 ------------------------------ Dated this the 8th day of October, 2010 JUDGMENT According to the petitioner, she was appointed as Sweeper in the Kerala University Centre for Teacher Education, Anchal in 1994 after a due selection process. She was working as Sweeper till 2008 without interruption. While so, on 6.8.2008, Ext.P1 memo was issued by the Kerala University stating that the petitioner was not regular in attending her duties . Explanation was called for from the petitioner. The petitioner submitted Ext.P2 reply in which she explained the circumstances under which certain lapses occurred on her part in attending to the duties. She also stated the circumstances under which she had to undergo a surgery. On 4.9.2008, the petitioner submitted Ext.P3 representation to the Deputy Registrar of the University praying that she may be permitted to join duty. W.P.(C).No.28449 OF 2010 2 2. Finding no response to Ext.P3, the petitioner submitted Ext.P5 representation dated nil before the Hon'ble Chief Minister. It is stated that Ext.P5 was forwarded to the Vice Chancellor of the University. The learned Standing Counsel submitted that Ext.P5 was received by the Vice Chancellor. 3. The prayer made by the petitioner in the Writ Petition is to quash the proceedings for termination of the service of the petitioner and for the issue of a writ of mandamus to reinstate her in service in the post of Sweeper. 4. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner was not appointed on regular employment and she was only engaged as daily rated worker. There was no continuance for a period of 14 years as alleged by the petitioner. The petitioner was not regular in attending to the duties and there was dereliction W.P.(C).No.28449 OF 2010 3 of duty on the part of the petitioner. In these circumstances, Ext.P1 memo was issued. It is also contended by the Standing Counsel that the petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs prayed for in the Writ Petition. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that for the time being, the petitioner would be satisfied, if the Vice Chancellor (second respondent) is directed to consider and dispose of Ext.P5, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner also may be permitted to reserve all her contentions, to be taken at the appropriate stage. 6. After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel, I am of the view that it is only just and proper to direct the second respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P5 representation as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two W.P.(C).No.28449 OF 2010 4 months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the Writ Petition and certified copy of the judgment before the second respondent. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE. cms