IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 28TH JUNE 2011 / 7TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 4828 of 2010(C) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. SAINABA U., SHIJIN NIVAS, PARAKODE P.O., ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. GIRIJA DEVI P.K., GIRIJA BHAVAN, THUVAYOOR NORTH, MANAKALA P.O., ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ SRI.P.M.MANOJ (KANNUR) RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. INSTITUTE OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, (IHRD), REP. BY THE DIRECTOR, INSTITUTE OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.RANI DIOTHIMA R2 BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN SRI.S.SUJIN, SC, IHRD SHRI M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS,SC,IHRD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss W.P.(C) NO.4828/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DTD. 11.2.2009 WITH RESPECT OT THE IST PETITIONER. P2:- COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DTD. 19.2.2004. P3:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 16.6.2008 SUBMITTED BY THE IST PETITIONER. P4:- COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DTD. 11.2.2009 WITH RESPECT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER. P5:- COPY OF THE NEWS REPORT IN THE NEW INDIAN EXPRESS DTD. 29.11.2006. P6:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 13.7.2007 IN WPC. 30440/2006. P7:- COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DTD. 15.12.2007 IN CONT. CASE (C) NO.1667/2007. P8:- COPY OF THE STATEMENT DTD. 22.1.2008 IN CONT. CASE (C) NO.1667/2007. P9:- COPY OF THE STATEMENT DTD. 4.2.2008 IN CONT. CASE (C) NO.1667/2007. P10:- COPY OF THE QUESTION PAPER. P11:- COPY OF THE SELECT LIST ISSUED BY THE IHRD. P12:- COPY OF THE CALL LETTER WITH RESPECT TO THE IST PETITIONER. P13:- COPY OF THE CALL LETTER WITH RESPECT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER. P14:- COPIES OF THE INTERIM ORDER DTD. 4.12.2009 IN WP(C) NO.34223/2009 AND ORDER DTD. 22.12.2009 IN WPC. 36748/2009. P15:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 15.3.2011 IN W.A. NO.1639/2010 AND CONNECTED CASES. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL:- TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE tss T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.4828 of 2010-C - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 28th day of June, 2011. JUDGMENT The petitioners are seeking for a direction to the second respondent to consider their grievance in the light of Ext.P15 judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court. 2. The petitioners were appointed on daily wages in the institution owned by the second respondent Management for different periods, the details of which are stated in paragraphs 1 to 3 of the writ petition. After a couple of years, they were retrenched during the years 2006 and 2009 respectively. The disengagement of various persons including the petitioners, was the subject matter of consideration by this Court in W.P. (C) No.30440/2006 and the said writ petition was disposed of recording the resolution taken by the second respondent that the adhoc employees will be given weightage in the direct recruitment. 3. A notification was issued for appointment to the post of last grade servants, Peons/Watcher, Sweeper, etc. An OMR test was conducted and the petitioners also participated in the test, but they did not find a place in the said list prepared as per Ext.P11. A cut of mark of 59 out of 70 was wpc 4828/2010 2 fixed for preparing the select list. It is pointed out that no weightage was given to them. 4. Heard learned counsel for the second respondent. 5. In Ext.P15 judgment it was noted that the institution has given appointment in the case of certain employees who were rendered long and continuous service of five years or more. The parties therein, therefore, sought permission of this Court to move the second respondent itself for appropriate reliefs. Accordingly, they were allowed to file individual representations. Learned counsel for the petitioners therefore prayed that the petitioners may also be allowed to file appropriate representations in the light of Ext.P15 judgment. 6. I am not going into any individual claims of the petitioners. It is upto petitioners to move the second respondent with appropriate representations, which will be duly considered in accordance with law, and the decision taken thereon will be informed to the petitioners, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the representations. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/