IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 3RD AUGUST 2010 / 12TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 23819 of 2010(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.SURESHAN, S/O. K.V.KORAN NAIR AGED 43 YEARS, NIGHT WATCHER CUM SWEEPER PAYYARAMBATH HOUSE, KANJIRATHARA, P.O.CHIRAKKAL, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.V.RAMKUMAR NAMBIAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION - STATIONERY DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. THE CONTROLLER OF STATIONERIES THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT STATIONERY OFFICER KANNUR. MR.ARAVIND KUMAR BABU, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.23819 of 2010 (B) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 3rd day of August, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is working as a Night Watcher cum Sweeper in the Stationery Department. He applied for category change as Packer/Peon. Complaining that his request was not considered, he approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.6174/2010. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P5 judgment dated 25/02/2010 directing consideration of his request. Accordingly, the claim was considered and the Government issued Ext.P7 dated 24/05/2010 informing the 2nd respondent that there is no Rule enabling such category change. The 2nd respondent in turn, issued Ext.P6 order dated 25/05/2010 to the petitioner rejecting his claim. It is thereupon that this writ petition has been filed challenging Exts.P6 & P7. 2. As already seen, the stand taken by the Government in Ext.P7 is that there is no Rule enabling category change. The petitioner has not succeeded in showing me any Rule contrary to WP(C) No.23819/2010 -2- what is stated in Ext.P7. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on Exts.P8 & P9 and contended that similar requests in respect of certain other persons have been granted. Even if it is correct, it only means that an irregularity has been committed on one occasion, which cannot be relied on as a precedent justifying a direction in this writ petition. Therefore, I am not persuaded to interfere with this matter. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg