The petitioner was employed as a Casual worker from 1988 till 1999 and later on the basis of an agreement as a Helper (General) till 2004. The petitioner's grievance is that similarly placed persons were regularised in the employment of the first respondent as per Exts.P11 and P.12 and despite his being granted similar orders in Ext.P13; he has not been regularised while similarly situated persons have been given the benefit of such regularisation.
2. The judgement, Ext.P13 in the writ petition earlier filed by the petitioner based on Ext.P11 and P.12 judgements recorded submission of the Standing Counsel for the respondents that in the event of their engaging persons in respect of the jobs that had been carried out by the petitioner, the petitioner's superior claim would be taken notice of and he would be granted W.P.(C) No. 11932 of 2006 -: 2 :- preference in being offered work. The petitioner being aggrieved by his non-consideration, more specifically by alleged engagement by the respondent of other similarly situated persons in exclusion to the petitioner, a contempt case was filed before this court which was disposed of by Ext.P14 recording the reiteration of the submission of the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. A further attempt made by the petitioner to re-open the contempt case also did not bare fruit as is evidenced by Ext. P15. The petitioners contention now is that many persons have been engaged in various categories by the respondent.
3. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent however, points out the specific denial in his counter affidavit wherein it has been stated that the engagement of various other persons, as is pointed out by the petitioner, were in different categories. It has W.P.(C) No. 11932 of 2006 -: 3 :- also been specifically averred that the posts of Bus cleaners have been reduced drastically due to the disposal of old vehicles. There is also an averement that the first respondent is no longer an autonomous body and now it is under the control and the supervision of the Kerala State Council for Science, Technology and Environment. In such circumstances, this court of the opinion that there cannot be any further direction issued to the respondent to regularise the claim of the petitioner over and beyond that which has been granted to him by Ext.P13. However, needless to say, the judgement, Ext.P13 still stands in his favour and the respondent or the subsequent council which has taken over the first respondent would necessarily be bound by the undertaking given by the first respondent in the earlier writ petition. In the event of any vacancy arising in the category in which W.P.(C) No. 11932 of 2006 -: 4 :- the petitioner had been working or in a similar or subordinate category, the first respondent would definitely have to keep in view the undertaking made in Ext.P13 and consider the claim of the petitioner preferentially as has been agreed to by the respondent in Ext.P13. With the above observations, this writ petition is closed, without costs.
Sd/-
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE //True copy// P.A. To Judge smvd