IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 3RD JANUARY 2011 / 13TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 38700 of 2010(J) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- P.V.SUKUMARAN, AGED 41, S/O.PERUMBIDI VELAYUDHAN, RAMAVARMAPURAM P.O., VILLADUM, THRISSUR. BY ADVS. SRI.B.RAMAN PILLAI, SRI. R. ANIL, SRI. ANIL K. MUHAMMED, SRI. SUJEESH MENON. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. *2. MANAGER, OFFICE OF THE ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL JUDGE, CHEMBUKKAVU, THRISSUR-20. * THE ADDRESS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT IS CORRECTED AS ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL JUDGE, THRISSUR, AS PER ORDER DATED 03/01/2011 IN I.A. NO. 17919/2010. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. ANTONY MUKKATH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/01/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P (C) No. 38700 of 2010 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 3rd day of January, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a temporary Driver appointed through employment exchange by the 2nd respondent. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: “i) issue a Writ, order or direction commanding the respondent No.2 not to terminate the appointment of petitioner as driver Grade-II in the office of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thrissur till a permanent hand is appointed in the said post.” According to the petitioner, the petitioner has been waiting for 19 years after registering in the employment exchange and this is the first employment he has received. Therefore according to him, unless a permanent hand comes to join duty the petitioner shall not be deprived of the temporary appointment given to him through the employment exchange. The Government Pleader submits that, the petitioner has no legal right which position of law has been settled by this court in Radha v. District Medical Officer [2002 (2) KLT 711]. I have considered the rival contentions. On 28.12.2010 this court passed the following interim order: “Government Pleader is directed to get instructions. Post on 07.01.2011. Meanwhile the 2nd respondent will be at liberty to continue engagement of the petitioner, if no permanent hand or persons recommended from the employment exchange is available.” I am of opinion that, if the writ petition is disposed of in terms of the interim order nobody will be prejudiced. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of in terms of the interim order. S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE Shg/