THARA N Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:-

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader as well as the learned standing counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 4.

(3.) The petitioner contends that she had been working as a Typist under the second respondent from 8.11.2011. It is stated that she had preferred representations seeking regularisation of her services, which was directed to be considered by this Court. It is stated that pursuant to Ext.P2 dated 11.03.2014, the 2 nd respondent had taken a decision by Ext.P3 that the petitioner's services will be regularised. However, her services were sought to be terminated in 2014. The petitioner had approached this Court and by Ext.P6 there was a direction to consider her request for regularisation on the strength of Ext.P3. It is stated that persons working as Helpers in the 2nd respondent institute were promoted as Typist, but the petitioner's request for regularisation was rejected on 20.7.2016 by Ext.P8. In Ext.P8, the reason stated for refusal to regularise the petitioner's service was that there was no post of Typist available and that the petitioner was not qualified going by the Special Rules for appointment against the post of Typist cum Stenographer, which was available in the institute.