IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2008 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 11882 of 2008(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ SANTHOSH KUMAR C.V.,LOWER DIVISION CLERK SUB REGISTRY OFFICE, ANGAMALY. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR (GENERAL) ERNAKULAM. 4. THE SUB REGISTRAR, SUB REGISTRY OFFICE ANGAMALY. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BEJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).11882/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 7th day of April, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner, a physically handicapped person with a disability in excess of 60%, was originally appointed on a provisional basis, according to him, for a period of 179 days between the period from 15.8.1998 to 15.8.1999. According to the petitioner, such employment was on daily wages. But, later on the strength of the decision taken by the Government to re-engage physically handicapped persons who completed 179 days of provisional service during the aforementioned period, he was re-appointed in service as evidenced by Ext.P2 and posted under Ext.P3. He continues in service. While so, under Ext.P5, a memo has been issued to him requiring him to show cause why his services should not be terminated on the premise that he was not provisionally appointed between the period from 15.8.1998 to 15.8.1999, but was only engaged on daily wages. Petitioner has submitted a reply thereto under Ext.P6. Final decision is yet to be taken. Petitioner apprehends W.P.(C).11882/2008 2 that his services would be terminated without him getting an effective opportunity to substantiate his objections. 2. I heard learned Government Pleader also. 3. In the result, writ petition is disposed of directing the third respondent to consider the petitioner's objections under Ext.P6, hear the petitioner and then take a decision pursuant to Ext.P5. It is open to the petitioner to place any decision rendered by this Court, which, according to him, substantiates his case. If the proposal under Ext.P5 is confirmed, then the same shall be kept in abeyance for a period of two weeks from the date on which the order is communicated to the petitioner. Other contentions are left open. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs