IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 20TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 29TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 22262 of 2011(G) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ RAJI. P., D/O.SREEDHARA PANICKER, MAYOR BHAVAN, OFFICER'S QUARTERS, P.T. USHA ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673 032. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. PROJECT OFFICER, DISTRICT KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES OFFICE, KOZHIKODE-673 032. 2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES, TRIVANDRUM-695 001. 3. SECRETARY, KERALA KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD, TRIVANDRUM-695 001. R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.P.HARISH, SC, KERALA KHADI BOARD. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs WP(C).No. 22262 of 2011(G) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A.816/2004/EST, KOZHIKODE DATED 19/02/2007 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE WORK DIARY SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER FROM 2007 TO 2011 (ONLY SOME OF THE WORK DIARIES OF EACH YEAR). EXT.P3: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 08/01/2007 IN O.P. NO. 20768/2001. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 01/08/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = WP(C).No.22262 of 2011-G. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 20th September, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a person who was appointed as Overseer on contract basis on 19.2.2007 for a period of one month, as per Ext.P1. Thereafter her contract was extended for a further period of two months. After the contract period was over, she continued on daily wage basis up to 11.7.2011, on which date she was terminated. She has filed this writ petition challenging the said proceedings. 2. According to the petitioner, the post of Overseer is not a post that is sanctioned. There are two Overseers working in the Khadi Board, one at Payyannur and the other at Kozhikode, who is the petitioner herein. The Overseer at Payyannur had filed OP.No.20768/2001 seeking regularisation of service as an Overseer. The same was disposed of by Ext.P3 judgment. The petitioner also claims that the respondents have given effect to the said judgment. WP(C).No.22262/2011-G. 2 2. Adv.K.P.Harish, who appears for the 3rd respondent has filed a statement. According to the counsel, the post of an Overseer is not a duly sanctioned post. The work of the Overseer is only to assist the 2nd respondent. Since the post was not a sanctioned one, the same has been abolished. It is for the said reason that the petitioner has been terminated. It is pointed out that as the post itself has been abolished, the petitioner is not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed in this writ petition. The question of regularisation of a similarly placed Overseer was considered by this Court in Ext.P3 judgment. In the said judgment, this Court has granted the following directions: “The petitioner may file a representation along with this judgment before the respondents, within one month from today. In that event, a decision on his claim shall be taken within three months from the date of receipt of the same, by the competent authority among the respondents. The petitioner shall be continued to be engaged on daily wage basis as and when services of Overseer on daily wage basis is required, in preference to fresh hands. The Original Petition is disposed of as above.” WP(C).No.22262/2011-G. 3 In the present case, there is no interim direction to engage the petitioner. The counsel for the petitioner points out that since there is a direction in Ext.P3 to engage the services of the petitioner in Ext.P3 as and when the services of an Overseer on daily wage basis becomes necessary, in preference to fresh hands, a similar direction may be granted to the petitioner also. In view of the fact that such a direction has been granted in Ext.P3, I find that a similar direction can also be granted to the petitioner herein. 3. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with the limited direction that as an when the services of an Overseer on daily wage basis becomes necessary, the petitioner's claim for employment shall be considered in preference to fresh hands. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, (Judge) Kvs/-