IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2009 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 34447 of 2009(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ K. SUDHAKARAN, S/O. PADMANABHAN NAIR, POKKINARAMBATH HOUSE, KOLATHARA, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. KOZHIKODE CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE SECRETARY, KOZHIKODE CORPORATION, KOZHIKODE. 3. THE HEALTH OFFICER, KOZHIKODE CORPORATION, KOZHIKODE. ADV. SRI.K.D.BABU,SC,KOZHIKODE CORPORATION THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 34447 OF 2009 (A) ===================== Dated this the 1st day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner was appointed as a Contingent Employee in the sanitation section of the Kozhikode Corporation. Subsequently, he was deployed for tapal work on working arrangement. There appears to have been some complaints about the working arrangement thus made. However, in a meeting that was convened by the Mayor, it was decided to continue the working arrangement. Ext.P1 is the minutes of the meeting. 2. Later, by Ext.P2, the petitioner was transferred from Circle No.13 where he was engaged for tapal work to Circle No.10 for sanitation work. This order was challenged before this Court in WP(C) No.30681/09. Though the writ petition was dismissed, in WA No.2468/09 filed by him, petitioner was given freedom to represent against the transfer. Accordingly, he submitted Ext.P6 representation, where he also stated that he is a cardiac patient and that, for that reason as well, he should be retained in the tapal section. However, the request was rejected by Ext.P7, where it is stated that the appointment of the petitioner was in sanitation section and therefore he is bound to do sanitation work WPC 34447/09 :2 : as well. It is challenging this order, the writ petition is filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner having been assigned for work in the tapal section, could not have been deployed again for sanitation work. 3. On the materials available, I am not able to accept this plea. Evidently, appointment of the petitioner was in sanitation section. He was assigned to do tapal work only on working arrangement. Although it may have been decided by the Corporation to continue the working arrangement, still it is always open to the Corporation to require the petitioner to discharge sanitation work depending upon the exigencies of work. This precisely is what has been done in this case. Therefore, the conclusions in the order rejecting the representation as evidenced by Ext.P7 cannot be interfered with. 4. Be that as it may, if according to the petitioner, due to his poor health condition, he is unable to discharge the duties assigned to sanitation work, it is open to the petitioner to pursue his claim for a convenient posting, in which event, that shall be dealt with in accordance with law. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp