IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 11TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 20TH KARTHIKA 1930 W.P(C).No. 32201 of 2008(H) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- PEARLVY.A.GEORGE, L.D.CLERK, ST.JOSEPHS & ST. CYRILS HIGH SCHOOL WEST MANGAD, KUNNAMKULAM, TRICHUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.DEEPU THANKAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, CHAVAKKAD. GOVT. PLEADER, SRI. A.J. VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 32201 OF 2008 H = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 11th day of November 2008 J U D G M E N T Ext. P1 is a circular issued by the 1st respondent exempting those who were appointed as Clerks prior to 19.11.1994 from acquiring test qualification for the purpose of availing of benefits such as higher grades. Petitioner submits that on the basis that she had completed 10 years service and in view of Ext.P1, being eligible for the first higher grade, submitted Ext. P2 statement of fixation of pay. That was returned by Ext. P3. In the meanwhile by Ext. P5 circular dated 26.12.2007 the Government cancelled Ext. P1. It is at that stage, this writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the 3rd respondent to disburse the arrears of salary as fixed in Ext. P2 on the basis of Ext. P1. 2. Admittedly, though in Ext. P2, the benefit of Ext. P1 exempting those appointed as Clerks prior to 19.11.1994 from acquiring test qualification, is claimed by the petitioner, Ext.P1 has W.P.(C) No.32201 OF 2008 - 2 - been cancelled by the Government as per Ext.P5. If that be so, once the benefit of exemption has been cancelled no employee can claim any right on the basis of the cancelled order. Therefore, at this stage, it will not be proper for this Court to direct that irrespective of the cancellation of Ext. P1, the petitioner should be extended the benefit thereof. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that prior to the issuance of Ext. P5, certain employees have been given the benefit of Ext. P1. Even if the said submission is true, this Court will not be justified in directing that for the sake of parity the Government should continue to extend the benefit of an order which stands cancelled, I am not persuaded to grant the direction sought for. 4. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-