IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2010 / 4TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 15094 of 2010(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- P.U.UJESH, AGED 25, S/O.C.R.UNNI, PULIMOOTTIL PARAMBU, MYTHRI NAGAR, 13/994, KARUVELIPPADY, COCHIN-5. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN SRI.T.V.JAYAKUMAR NAMBOODIRI SRI.THUSHAR NIRMAL SARATHY SRI.M.M.VINOD KUMAR SMT.K.M.RAMYA SRI.P.K.RAKESH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. DIRECTOR OF URBAN AFFAIRS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF COCHIN, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA,SC,COCHIN CORPORATI FOR R2 GOVT.PLEADER SRI.ARAVINDKUMAR BABU SRI.S.RAMESH BABU, SC FOR CORPN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 15094 OF 2010 (J) ===================== Dated this the 25th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T According to the petitioner, he has been working as a CLR worker in the second circle of Cochin Corporation from 9/6/08. It is pointed out that this fact has been recognized in Ext.P2 draft seniority list by including the petitioner at Sl.No.518 thereof, though the date of engagement has been wrongly shown as 6/9/08. On publication of Ext.P2, petitioner filed Ext.P3 contending that the date of engagement should be corrected as 9/6/08. However, when seniority list was published by Ext.P4, petitioner has been excluded from the said list and according to him, people who were engaged subsequent to 9/6/08 have been included in Ext.P4. 2. In Ext.P3 objection filed by the petitioner, there is an endorsement made by the Health Inspector of the Corporation itself suggesting that the petitioner has been engaged from 9/6/08. It is despite the said endorsement in Ext.P3 that the petitioner had been excluded in Ext.P4. 3. No reason whatsoever is forthcoming why the WPC No. 15094/10 :2 : petitioner was excluded from Ext.P4. In such circumstances, the matter necessarily needs to be considered by the 2nd respondent. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner for inclusion in Ext.P4 w.e.f. 9/6/08. Orders in this behalf should be passed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 4 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp