IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 2ND MARCH 2007 / 11TH PHALGUNA 1928 WP(C).No. 7002 of 2007(H) ---------------------------------- PETITIONERS: ------------------- 1. MARIAMMA. P.K., PANAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, VILLOONNI P.O., KOTTAYAM. 2. ROSAMMA K.V., CHATHUKULAM, PERUMBAIKKAD P.O., KOTTAYAM. 3. MARYKUTTY JOSEPH, MANJAPPARAMBIL, ATHIRAMPUZHA P.O., KOTTAYAM. 4. BIJIMOL MATHEW, CHERUVIL, PATTITHANAM P.O., KOTTAYAM. 5. GRACAMMA VARGHESE. L., KURISUKUNNEL HOUSE, MANNARAKAYAM P.O., KANJIRAPPALLY. 6. ELSAMMA MATHEW, PULIYAMPALLI HOUSE, MANJOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM. 7. LEKHA KUMARI. N., EDAYANTHRATHU HOUSE, MARIYATHURUTHE P.O., KOTTAYAM. 8. RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR. G., USHA NIVAS, THAKAZHY P.O., ALAPPUZHA. 9. SUMITHA. S., THADATHIL HOUSE, EZHUMATTOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA. 10. VASUMATHI. C.R., CHOLAMALAYIL HOUSE, THELLAKOM P.O., KOTTAYAM. 11. KUNJUMOL. V.J., TYPIST, VADAYATTETTTU HOUSE, GANDHI NAGAR P.O., KOTTAYAM. 12. JUSTIN K. JACOB, PEON, KADUTHADAIYIL HOUSE, AMALAGIRI P.O., KOTTAYAM. 13. CHITHRA SEKHAR, CHITRALAYAM, AMALAGIRI P.O., KOTTAYAM. 14. SAGEETHA BEEVI. B., CHAYAKARAYATH KIZHEKKETHIL, AATHIKKATTUKULANGARA, NOORNAD P.O., ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.SHAJI SMT.T.V.NEEMA RESPONDENT: -------------------- M.G. UNIVERSITY, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. BY ADV. SHRI V.A. MUHAMMED, SC, MG UTY. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/03/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 7002 OF 2007 H -------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd March, 2007 JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent University. 2. Case of the petitioners, in brief, is as follows: Petitioners have been employed in various posts as daily wage employees and almost all of them have been continuing without any break in service, and though they had approached this Court earlier when orders to terminate their service were passed, an interim stay was granted and ultimately the Writ Petition was dismissed. Even thereafter, they were allowed to continue. Ext.P14 is a representation filed by petitioners before the respondent. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that a decision may be directed to be taken on Ext.P14. Without expressing any view on the merits of the matter, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondent to consider WP(C) NO.7002/07 H 2 and take a decision on Ext.P14 in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible and, at any rate, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. I leave open the contentions of petitioners. K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk.