IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 3RD OCTOBER 2008 / 11TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 26173 of 2008(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.BAHULEYAN ASARI, TC.23/1407, MANNADI VEEDU MELARANNOOR, KARAMANA PO., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.SREEDHARAN NAIR SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, ADMINISTRATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.P.NANDAKUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.26173 of 2008 ------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd October, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner was appointed as Attender on daily wages by the 3rd respondent on 10.12.2001. He continued in service upto March 2003. When his service was terminated, he filed W.P.(C) No.29980 of 2005 in this Court seeking reinstatement in service. This Court disposed of the said writ petition with a direction to the 3rd respondent to consider the representations submitted by the petitioner for reinstatement in service. By Ext.P1 order passed on 24.12.2005, the said request was declined. The 3rd respondent has in Ext.P1 stated that there is no sanctioned post of Attender against which the petitioner can be appointed and that he was engaged to work as Attender on daily wages, in view of the provision in the budget estimates for such engagement. Ext.P1 order was passed as early as on 24.12.2005. Though Ext.P1 was challenged in W.P. W.P.(C) No.26173/2008 2 (C) No.22661 of 2006, the said writ petition was dismissed. Long thereafter, petitioner has filed Ext.P6 representation dated, 7.6.2008, before the Chief Secretary to Government of Kerala, seeking regularisation in service. In the said representation, he relied on Ext.P5 order dated 7.10.1994 and the consequential appointment of one Smt.A.Sheena as Part time Sweeper in the office of the Conservator of Forests, Northern Circle, Kannur. In this writ petition, petitioner challenges Ext.P1 and prays for the following reliefs:- i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records leading to Ext.P1 and quash the same. ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service as Attender forthwith. iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the first respondent to pass orders on Ext.P6. W.P.(C) No.26173/2008 3 2. The claim of the petitioner was rejected by Ext.P1 order passed as early as on 24.12.2005. The challenge made by the petitioner to Ext.P1 was not entertained by this Court, when it dismissed W.P.(C) No.22661 of 2000. Therefore, the challenge made to Ext.P1 at this distance of time, cannot be entertained. As regards the third prayer of the petitioner for a direction to the first respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P6, I am of the view that there is no merit in the said request as well. Regularisation of Smt.A.Sheena referred to by the petitioner in Ext.P6 was in the post of Part time Sweeper, pursuant to Ext.P5 Government Order dated, 7.10.1994. The said appointment was made in relaxation of the Special Rules as a one time measure. The petitioner whose claim for regularisation was rejected as early as on 24.12.2005 by Ext.P1 order and was also not successful in challenging Ext.P1 on an earlier occasion, cannot seek to re-agitate the matter by filing a belated representation evidenced by Ext.P6. The rights of the petitioner stand concluded by Ext.P1 order and the judgment of W.P.(C) No.26173/2008 4 this Court in W.P.(C) No.22661 of 2006. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the third relief prayed for by him as well. For the reasons stated above, I hold that there is no merit in the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition accordingly fails and is dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE nj.