IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 5TH JUNE 2008 / 15TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 17146 of 2007(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ K.S.SULTHAN PURUMULAMTHADAM HOUSE, ERATTUPETTA P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGEKUTTY MATHEW RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH, COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE ERATTUPETTA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, ERATTUPETTA P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 3. M.S.KABEER MURIKOLILHOUSE ERATTUPETTA PO KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.K.MOHAMMED YOUSUF FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON ON 05/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1- A TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.P2- THE TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE ATTENDANCE REGISTER OF THE EMPLOYEES OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.P3- TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 28.5.07 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT (TRUE COPY) P.A TO JUDGE V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).17146/2007 -------------------- Dated this the 5th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner was appointed as the siren operator in the second respondent, Panchayat, on daily wage basis, as per Ext.P1. Apparently, his services were later dispensed with. It seems that the third respondent was instead appointed as siren operator. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to the second respondent to cancel the appointment of the third respondent and to reinstate him in service. He has filed Ext.P3 representation before the first respondent. In the circumstances, the only direction that could be issued is to the first respondent to consider and take appropriate action on Ext.P3. In the result, writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider and take appropriate action on Ext.P3, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs