IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 31356 of 2009(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ NIDHEESH P.N., WORKSHOP ATTENDER, I.T.I ETTUMANOOR RESIDING AT PADINJAREKKARA, MUKKOTTUTHARA (PO), PANICKAVAYAL, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM SRI.DIPU.R SMT.MERCIAMMA MATHEW SRI.K.S.HARIDAS SRI.V.RENJITH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE TRAINING DIRECTOR, INDUSTRIAL TRAINING DEPARTMENT, THYCADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 14. 2. SREENATH ERAYI KONGINI, PEON GOVERNMENT ITI KANNOOR. 3. PRINCIPAL, GOVERNMENT ITI, ETTUMANOOR, KOTTAYAM. GOVT.PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 31356 OF 2009 (L) ===================== Dated this the 4th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner joined service as a Watchman in 2004. Subsequently, he joined the course and passed the trade test in the trade of Plumber and the certificate is Ext.P1. By Ext.P3, he was later promoted as Workshop Attender and satisfactory completion of probation in that post also has been declared by Ext.P4 order. 2. While continuing in the said post, petitioner states that the 2nd respondent made a complaint to the 1st respondent, against the petitioner undergoing the course, resulting in Ext.P1 certificate. Coming to know of the same, petitioner submitted his explanation as per Ext.P6 as well. It is stated that though a decision on Ext.P5 has not so far been taken by the 1st respondent, petitioner is likely to be reverted from the post of Workshop Attendant. It is in these circumstances, challenging Ext.P5 the writ petition is filed. 3. As already noticed, on receipt of Ext.P5, petitioner has filed Ext.P6 explanation. Therefore, as at present, I have no WPC 31356/09 :2 : reason to think that, before taking a decision on Ext.P5, there is any likelihood of the petitioner being reverted. At this stage, what the 1st respondent has to do is to take a decision on Ext.P5 with notice to the petitioner and the 2nd respondent. 4. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: (1) That the 1st respondent shall take a decision on Ext.P5, duly adverting to Ext.P6 and with notice to the petitioner and the 2nd respondent. (2) It is directed that until a decision is taken as above, petitioner shall not be reverted from the post of Workshop Attendant, he is holding since March, 2007. (3) Petitioner may produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition before the 1st respondent for compliance. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp