IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 21ST JUNE 2011 / 31ST JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 37320 of 2009(H) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ RAJU G., S/O.GEEVARGHESE, AGED 53, RAJU BHAVAN, ETC P.O., KOTTARAKKARA. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.MANILAL SRI.S.NIDHEESH RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARIATY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPAPRTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. INSTITUTE OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT (IHRD) REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR, INSTITUTE OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.RANI DIOTHIMA R2 BY SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE BY ADV. SRI.S.SUJIN, SC, IHRD SHRI M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS,SC,IHRD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.37320/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE NEWS PAPER REPORT IN THE NEW INDIAN EXPRESS DATED 29/11/2006. P2 COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 13/7/2007 IN WP(C)NO.30440/06. P3 COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 15/12/2007 IN CONTEMPT CASE NO.1667/07. P4 COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED 22/1/2008 IN CONT.CASE 1667/07. P5 COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED 4/2/2008 IN CONT.CASE 1667/07. P6 COPY OF THE QUESTION PAPER. P7 COPY OF THE SELECT LIST ISSUED BY THE IHRD. P8 COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN WP(C)NO.1639/10 DATED 15/3/2011 P9 COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN WP(C)NO.2115/10 DATED 15/3/2011 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.37320/2009-H ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 21st day of June, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner was engaged by the second respondent as a Last Grade Servant on ad hoc basis and it is pointed out that the petitioner was allowed to continue upto the year 2006. 2. The writ petition is filed seeking for a declaration that the petitioner is entitled to weightage and preference for appointment under the second respondent. 3. The petitioner had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C).No.30440/2006 which was disposed of by Ext.P2 Judgment. Therein, a direction was issued to finalise the procedure for recruitment of last grade servants, part time employees and ad hoc employees etc. in terms of the resolution adopted by the second respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that in spite of the directions, fresh hands were engaged which led to the filing of the Contempt of Court Case. Therein, an affidavit was filed stating that a scheme will be formulated for direct recruitment of last grade W.P.(C). No.37320/2009 -:2:- servants. The Contempt of Court Case was closed by accepting Ext.P3 affidavit and the statement filed therein is produced as Ext.P4. 4. The selection for last grade servants was conducted, O.M.R test was also there and the petitioner participated in the said selection process. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was not called for the interview and no weightage was given to the petitioner in the written test. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the Writ Appeals filed by similarly placed persons, this Court has issued various directions as per Exts.P8 and P9 Judgments. A reading of Ext.P8 Judgment shows that therein the appellants claimed for re-induction/regularisation in service under the second respondent herein itself. In para.3 it is stated that some of the similarly placed candidates who were engaged on provisional basis have already been re-inducted/regularised by the Institute considering the long and continuous service rendered by them for five years or more. In para.4 the submission of the learned Standing Counsel that the Institute is W.P.(C). No.37320/2009 -:3:- prepared to apply the same yard stick in the case of the appellants also if there are any to be still absorbed or re-inducted, was recorded. Accordingly, this Court directed the second respondent to take appropriate decision in the matter by applying the same yardstick that has been adopted in the case of other similarly placed employees who have been given the benefit of absorption/regularisation. The parties therein were allowed to file individual representations in the matter and, similarly, this Court disposed of another writ petition as per Ext.P9 Judgment. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is similarly placed. The petitioner will file appropriate representation before the second respondent which will be filed within ten days and the same will be considered and appropriate orders will be passed within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the representation. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. Sd/- (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms