IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 22ND SEPTEMBER 2008 / 31ST BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 26010 of 2008(U) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: ------------------- 1. K.T. SALIM KUMAR, PEON, TECHNICAL HIGH SCHOOL, ADIMALI, IDUKKI DISTRICT, 2. T.P. SAJEEVAN, PEON, GOVERNMENT ENGINEERNG COLLEGE, PAINAVE, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.T.T.MOHAMMED THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 26010 OF 2008 U = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 22nd day of September 2008 J U D G M E N T The prayer in this writ petition is to quash Ext. P5 and to direct the respondents to frame Kerala Technical Education Ministerial Subordinate Service Rules incorporating relevant rules similar to Exts. P1 and P2 providing for transfer appointment of Peons in the category of LDCs. This claim was taken up by the petitioners as per Ext. P3 and the same has been rejected by the 1st respondent as per Ext. P5. 2. The only ground on which the claim is now raised is that for some other services a provision similar to what is claimed has been provided. In my view, the petitioners have no case that in the Technical Education Department to which the petitioners belong, any similarly situated category of employees are enjoying this benefit. If that be so, there is no basis for the petitioners' attempt to claim parity with the employees of other services, who belong to W.P.(C) No. 26010 OF 2008 -2- a different class of employees. The petitioners also cannot plead discrimination comparing themselves with employees of other services. In any case, a direction to frame rules as now sought for is more in the nature of a direction to legislate which is beyond the province of this Court. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-