IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2008 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 W.P(C).No. 33642 of 2008(E) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ GEORGEKUTTY JOSEPH, FULL TIME MENIAL, ST.THOMAS HIGH SCHOOL, THUDANGANADU P.O THODUPUZHA EDUCATION DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER SRI.SIJI ANTONY RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT TO GENERAL EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, DPI OFFICE, TRIVANDRUM. 3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, OFFICE OF THE D.D.E., KOTTAYAM. 4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE DEO, PALA. 5. THE CORPORATE MANAGER, CORPORATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY, DIOCESE OF PALA. GOVT. PLEADER, SRI. A.J. VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ============== W.P.(C) NO. 33642 OF 2008 (E) ==================== Dated this the 1st day of December, 2008 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Exts. P6, P7, P9 and P10. Petitioner submits that he is working as a full time menial in St.Thomas High School, Thudanganadu of which the 5th respondent is the Manager. For 2003-04, the post was cancelled for the reason that student strength had fallen below 700. This resulted in the cancellation of the post. Appeals and revision were rejected by Exts. P6, P7 and P9. These orders are dated 13/5/2004, 14/12/05 and 29/9/06 respectively. Neither the petitioner nor the Manager challenged the proceedings culminating in Ext.P9. However, long thereafter by filing Ext.P10 dated 14/01/2008, petitioner is seen to have represented against Ext.P9 and Ext.P1 order dated 6/10/2008 is passed. It is in this background writ petition is filed. 2. In my view, the proceedings arising out of the cancellation of the post ended with Ext.P9 of 29/9/06. If the petitioner or the Manager were aggrieved, those orders should have been challenged within the permissible time. This was not done. Once a cause of action has become time barred, it is impermissible for the party to get it resurrected by filing a representation and that too a non statutory one, which in this case is WPC 33642/08 :2 : Ext.P10. Counsel for the petitioner referred me to the Apex Court judgment in Union of India and others v. Tarsem Singh (2008(8) SCC 648). In that case the Apex Court has held that if a cause of action is of continuing nature, the question of time bar do not apply. However, I am not able to apply the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment to the facts of this case. If at all the petitioner had a cause of action, that cause of action arose consequent on Ext.P9 and it is not one of recurring nature. Counsel for the petitioner submits that he has not been paid for the period he has worked. If he has any such claim, it will be open to the petitioner to pursue the same. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp