IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2010 / 2ND ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 16713 of 2010(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. P.N.JAYAKUMAR, PALAKKAL HOUSE, THOTTUBHAGAM P.O., THIRUVALLA, CLR/HR HANDS, PAMBA IRRIGATION PROJECT, PIP DIVISION, CHENGANNOOR. 2. M.K.RAVEENDRAN, MALAYIL THARAYIL HOUSE, WEST OTHARA P.O., THIRUVALLA, CLR/HR HANDS, PAMBA IRRIGATION PROJECT, PIP DIVISION, CHENGANNOOR. 3. M.K.RAJENDRAN, RENJITH BHAVAN, WEST OTHARA P.O., THYMARUMKARA, THIRUVALLA, CLR/HR HANDS, PAMBA IRRIGATION PROJECT, PIP DIVISION, CHENGANNOOR. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.S.SHARAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, WATER RESOURCES (GROUND WATER) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR, GROUND WATER DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PAMBA IRRIGATION PROJECT, PIP DIVISION, CHENGANNOR. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.ARAVINDKUMAR BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 16713 OF 2010 (L) ===================== Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioners claim to be CLR workers under the Ground Water Department. Their grievance is that by Ext.P4 Government Order, 178 CLR workers are ordered to be appointed as SLR workers and that overlooking their seniority, appointments are proposed to be made. It is with this grievance, the writ petition is filed. 2. Learned Government Pleader has obtained instructions in the matter. According to the learned Government Pleader, the petitioners are working at the Pamba Irrigation Project. It is stated that the said project is not one coming under the Ground Water Department. It is stated that, therefore, the petitioners cannot get coverage of Ext.P4. 3. Facts being as stated above by the learned Government Pleader and in the absence of anything produced by the petitioners to contradict the same, it has to be held that the petitioners cannot claim the benefit of Ext.P4. If so, there arise no question of overlooking the petitioners' seniority. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp