IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 15TH JANUARY 2010 / 25TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 37332 of 2009(J) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. O.C.BABY S/O. CHERIAN, AGED 46 YEARS, RESIDING AT ODAMPADATH HOUSE, KIZHIMURI P.O., RAMAMANGALAM, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. K.V.DAISY, W/O. MARKOSE, AGED 41 YEARS, RESIDING AT THEKKEKOOTTU KALAMPOOR P.O. (VIA) PIRAVOM, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK. BY MR.C.K.PAVITHRAN, ADVOCATE RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, CIVIL SATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA. BY MR.P.NARAYANAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.37332 OF 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of January, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioners have been provisionally appointed as Authorized Retail Distributors in Muvattupuzha Taluk under clause 45(1) of the Kerala Rationing Order 1966. The 1st petitioner was appointed in respect of ARD No.217 as per Exhibit P1 proceedings. This was being extended from time to time. By Exhibit P3, the 2nd petitioner was appointed. Alleging that the provisional appointments are proposed to be terminated without any valid reason, this writ petition has been filed. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondents are taking action in the light of the interim order passed in Writ Appeal No.1217/2009. It is submitted that the Writ Appeal has been subsequently disposed of. 3. Learned Government Pleader brought to my notice the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C)No.35583 of 2009 wherein it has been held that any priority contemplated in clause 45(2) is only subject to the operation of the reservation W.P.(C) No.37332/2009 2 under clause 45(2)(1). 4. As far as the provisional appointments are concerned, there cannot not be any embargo, and till permanent appointments are made, the provisional arrangement will continue. The department will be free to proceed with any action for permanent appointment in accordance with the Rules also. The 1st petitioner will be allowed to continue on the present provisional arrangement till such permanent appointments are made. As far as the 2nd petitioner is concerned, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that during the pendency of the writ petition, the provisional arrangement has been terminated and now the shop is attached to another ARD. It is upto the 2nd petitioner to move the competent authority for extension of the arrangement and if an application is filed, the same will be considered in accordance with law expeditiously by the respondents. This writ petition is disposed of as above. T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE smp