IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 24195 of 2005(E)
1. N.D.MATHEW, S/O.NELSON,
... Petitioner
2. SHERLY B.R., D/O.BHANU NADAR,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR, ANIMAL HUSBANDRY
3. DISTRICT ANIMAL HUSBANDRY OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.T.V.GEORGE
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :04/12/2008
O R D E R
S. SIRI JAGAN, J.
-------------------------------------------
W.P.(C)No.24195 & 24990 OF 2005
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 4th day of December, 2008
JUDGMENT
W.P.(C) No.24990 OF 2005
The petitioners are certificate holders in Artificial
Insemination on cattles. They have also undergone training in
Artificial Insemination and Dairy Management. They were
conducting private Artificial Insemination Centres. While so, by
Ext.P1, the Government banned private Artificial Insemination
and directed that Artificial Insemination can be conducted only
under the auspices of the Animal Husbandry Department of the
Government. Later on, realising the fact that on account of
Ext.P1, many qualified private individuals lost their livelihood, the
Government issued Ext.P2 order dated 19.2.2000, by which it
was decided to consider qualified persons for the purpose of
appointment as Part – Time Contingent Employees by relaxing
the recruitment rules in this regard. Appropriate amendments
were also made in the Kerala Part-Time Contingent Service
Special Rules. Although a learned Single Judge of this Court held
W.P.(c)No.24990/05 & Con.case 2
that appointments as per the amended rules can be made only
to vacancies, which have arisen subsequent to the
amendment, that judgment was set aside by the Division
Bench in W.A.No.977/2004 holding that appointments effected
to vacancies also after the amendment of the Special Rules, in
accordance with the Special Rules, is perfectly valid
notwithstanding the date of occurrence of vacancy.
Thereafter, the petitioners claimed that they have submitted
Exts.P5 and P6 applications seeking appointment as Part- Time
Contingent Employees. However they were not considered for
such appointments. Therefore, the 1st petitioner filed a
representation dated 30.3.2004 before the Government which
was rejected by Ext.P7 dated 9.6.2005 holding that he did not
apply in time pursuant to the notification inviting applications.
The petitioners, therefore, seek the following reliefs:
” (i) Call for the entire records relating to the
case;
(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus commanding the
respondents to appoint the petitioners as Part Time
Contingent Employees under Animal Husbandry
Department, without any further delay.
(iii) issue a writ of mandamus declaring that
petitioners are entitled to be appointed as part Time
contingent Employees under the 2nd respondent in
view of Ext.P1 to P3 orders.”
W.P.(c)No.24990/05 & Con.case 3
2. According to the petitioners, the notifications
inviting applications were published on 3.12.2000 and the
petitioners had submitted Exts.P5 and P6 as early as on
29.8.2000 and 27.8.2000 and therefore, there is no merit in
the statement in Ext.P7 that the 1st petitioner did not apply in
time. Hence, according to the petitioners, they are entitled to
be considered for appointment as Part Time Contingent
Employees.
3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 1st
respondent, in which it is specifically denied that Exts.P5 and
P6 have been received. Although relying on the sentence in
paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit to the effect that the
petitioners’ application were not received before 6.12.2000 as
stated by them, the petitioner would try to make out a case
that the case of the respondents is only that they received the
applications belatedly, they have not been able to satisfy me
that Exts.P5 and P6 applications have been received by the
respondents. Although the petitioners would contend that the
notification was published on 3.12.2000 giving only three days
time namely, 6.12.2000 for submitting applications which is
arbitrary and unreasonable, I am not inclined to consider the
W.P.(c)No.24990/05 & Con.case 4
same since the notifications were issued as early as in 2000
and the petitioners have filed this writ petition only in 2005.
In so far as the petitioners have not applied pursuant to
notifications, I do not think that at this distance of time any
relief can be granted to the petitioner in the writ petition.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
W.P.(C)No.24195 of 2005
In this writ petition also the facts are the identical as in
W.P.(C) No.24990/2005. Here also the petitioners have not
been able to satisfy me that they had filed a valid application
within time pursuant to notifications inviting applications.
They have also not challenged the notification inviting
applications within the reasonable time, because this writ
petition is also filed only in 2005 whereas the notification
inviting applications were issued as early as in December
2000. Therefore, I do not find any merit in this writ petition
also. Accordingly, the same is also dismissed.
S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
Acd
W.P.(c)No.24990/05 & Con.case 5