IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2009 / 28TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 17072 of 2009(D) ------------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ DHIL RAJ M.C., S/O.LATE M.K.CHANDRAN, AGED 25 YEARS, MANAYATH (H), PULIYANAM P.O., PULIYANAM, ANGAMALY. BY ADV. MR.C.A.JOY RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, EXCISE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. KERALA STATE BEVERAGES CORPORATION LTD., SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 3. KERALA ABKARI WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD REP.BY ITS CHIEF WELFARE FUND INSPECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN R2 BY ADV. MR.ELVIN PETER.P.J, SC,BEVERAGES CORPN R3 BY MR.M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ----------------------------- W.P(C) No.17072 of 2009-D ------------------------------ Dated this the 19th day of August, 2009. J U D G M E N T Heard Sri.C.A.Joy, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt.Anu Sivaraman, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent, Sri.Elvin Peter, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent and Sri.M.K.Chandra Mohan Das, the learned standing counsel appearing for the third respondent. 2. The petitioner's father late Chandran was an arrack worker. The sale of arrack in the State of Kerala was banned with effect from 1.4.1996. A large number of arrack workers thereupon committed suicide. The Government, taking note of the plight of the arrack workers and their families, issued Ext.P1 order dated 20.2.2002 directing that 25% of the vacancies filled up on daily wage basis in the Kerala State Beverages Corporation in future will stand reserved to be filled up by the abkari workers registered with the Abkari Workers Welfare Fund Board, who have lost their employment due to the arrack ban imposed with effect from 1.4.2006. Later, the Government issued Ext.P2 order dated 7.8.2004 whereby 25% of all daily wage employment vacancies arising in the Kerala State Beverages Corporation were earmarked for the dependent sons of arrack workers who had committed suicide. W.P(C) No.17072 of 2009-D 2 3. As per the terms of Ext.P2 Government order only the dependent son who has not completed 38 years of age will be eligible for such employment. It is also stipulated that the consent letter of the wife of the deceased employee should be produced along with the application. By Ext.P2, the Government also directed the third respondent Board to forward a list of eligible workers. Pursuant to Ext.P2, the third respondent Board prepared Ext.P3 list and forwarded it to the Kerala State Beverages Corporation. The petitioner's brother Sri.Dijil Raj was included therein in Sl.No.136. An order of appointment evidenced by Ext.P4 was thereafter issued on 5.5.2009 appointing him on daily wage basis. When Ext.P4 order was issued, the petitioner's younger brother Sri.Dijil Raj was pursuing his studies in Mumbai. Since he was not interested in joining duty on daily wage basis in the Kerala state Beverages corporation, he and his mother executed Ext.P5 consent letter stating that petitioner may be given employment on his place. The petitioner thereupon moved the Managing Director of the Kerala State Beverages Corporation by submitting Ext.P6 representation. The petitioner’s mother moved the Managing Director by submitting Ext.P7 representation. Thereafter, this writ petition was filed seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the second respondent to appoint the petitioner in the place of his brother Sri.Dhijil Raj after canceling Ext.P4 W.P(C) No.17072 of 2009-D 3 appointment order. In the alternative he seeks a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the the second respondent to consider the request made in Exts.P6, P7 and P8 representations and pass orders thereon within a time limit to be fixed by this Court. After this writ petition was filed the petitioner filed Ext.P9 representation before the Chief Welfare Fund Inspector of the Kerala Abkari Workers Welfare Fund Board requesting that his name may be substituted in the place of Sri.Dhijil Raj in Ext.P3 list. 4. The second respondent has filed a statement wherein it is stated that only candidates sponsored by the third respondent can get appointment pursuant to Ext.P2. It is also stated that revised appointment order can be issued in the name of the petitioner after canceling Ext.P4 list if the third respondent permits the inclusion of the petitioner’s name in Ext.P3 list. The third respondent has filed a statement wherein the third respondent has conceded that the original of Ext.P5 consent letter executed by the petitioner’s mother and Ext.P8 consent letter from the petitioner’s mother and younger brother Dhijil Raj have been received. It is also stated that it is for the second respondent to provide employment in the manner laid down in Ext.P2. 5. On going through the pleadings and the submissions made at the Bar it is evident that the claim of the petitioner is that since his W.P(C) No.17072 of 2009-D 4 brother is not interested in working on daily wage basis in the Kerala State Beverages Corporation, the petitioner may be appointed in the place of his brother. He relies on Exts.P5 and P8 consent letters. The petitioner’s brother is not on the party array and the consent letter is not attested by a notary. In such circumstances this Court cannot direct that petitioner should be appointed. Such being the situation, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the third respondent to consider the request made by the petitioner in Ext.P9 with notice to the petitioner, his mother and his younger brother Sri.Dhijil Raj and decide whether the petitioner’s name can be included in Ext.P3 list in the place of Sri.Dhijil Raj. This shall be done within three months from the date on which the petitioner produces a certified copy of this judgment before the third respondent. In the event of the third respondent accepting the petitioner’s claim for appointment, the second respondent shall issue the necessary appointment orders expeditiously. Sd/- P.N.RAVINDRAN JUDGE //True Copy// PA to Judge ab W.P(C) No.17072 of 2009-D 5