IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 6415 of 2007(L)
1. JAYAFAR C.K. EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT,
... Petitioner
2. MUHAMMED MUSTHAFA M
Vs
1. STATE COUNCIL FOR EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR,
3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
For Petitioner :SMT.P.V.ASHA
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :28/01/2008
O R D E R
V.GIRI,J.
-------------------------
W.P ( C) Nos, 26600, 27317, 27201, 27487 of 2006 &
6415, 6419,4308 of 2007
--------------------------
Dated this the 28th January, 2008
J U D G M E N T
Common issues arise for consideration in these writ
petitions and therefore they are being disposed of by a common
judgment. Writ Petition No.6415 of 2007 is taken as the leading
case for convenience.
1. Petitioners in these writ petitions were appointed on a
contract/daily wage basis in different capacities in the Kerala
State Open School, which is stated to be a wing of the State
Council of Educational Research and Training and Centre. They
have been serving in different capacities either on a contract
basis or on a daily wage basis for various periods. Exhibit P3
notification came to be issued by the 2nd respondent inviting
applications for 70 temporary vacancies, in different posts.
Some of the petitioners earlier approached this Court
challenging the notification, inter alia, on the ground that
Special Rules have not been framed for effecting appointments
W.P ( C) Nos. 26600, 27317, 27201, 27487 of 2006 & 6415, 6419,4308 of 2007
2
to these posts. What is proposed to be now done is again
appointment on a provisional basis and not regular appointment.
Consequently, there is no reason why persons like the petitioner
who were appointed on a provisional basis should not be
permitted to continue until regular hands are appointed, it is
contended. Reference is made in W.P. (C ) No.4308 of 2007 to
Exhibit P1 order passed in W.P. (C) No.26600 of 2006, which is
also one of the petitions being disposed of by this judgment.
2. In a counter affidavit filed by the Government in
W.P (C) No.26600 of 2006, it is mentioned that the Kerala State
Open School is under the Administrative control of the Director
of State Council of Educational Research and Training and is
functioning as a separate wing of SCERT. Appointments of staff
to the post of teaching faculties, to the administrative branch in
the State Council is on a deputation basis from the existing staff
of the General Education Department. But in the case of the
Kerala State Open School all the staff members were engaged on
a daily wages/contract basis except in the case of the State Co-
ordinator. Special Rules for the State Council or the Open School
are yet to be approved by the Government. The staff pattern as
W.P ( C) Nos. 26600, 27317, 27201, 27487 of 2006 & 6415, 6419,4308 of 2007
3
such is approved by the governing body of the State Council
also. Petitioners are working on a daily wage basis. They have
no right to continue in service and they have no right to prevent
a fresh selection being conducted by the respondents.
Petitioners are entitled to participate in the same selection,
notified under Exhibit P2 in W.P. (C ) No.4308 of 2007.
3. A separate counter affidavit has been filed by the
State Council in W.P (C ) No.26600 of 2006 as also in W.P. (C)
No.4308 of 2007. It is contended that several among the
petitioners are not qualified for the post. They have been
appointed on a daily wage basis or on a contract basis. Regular
appointments in the Open School can be effected only when
approval is obtained in that regard from the Government.
Government will have to approve the staff pattern. It is
therefore that the present selection procedure has been
notified. A selection board has been constituted to conduct the
interview for the various posts. In paragraph 8 of the counter
affidavit, it is stated as follows.
“A Selection Board has been constituted to conduct
the interview for the various posts in the SCERT vide Office
W.P ( C) Nos. 26600, 27317, 27201, 27487 of 2006 & 6415, 6419,4308 of 2007
4
Order No.A1/3038/2006/SCERT dated 30.6.2007 with
Processor M.A.Khader, Director, SCERT as covnenor and
with Chairman for each Board. A meeting of the Chairman
and members of various Boards was convened by the
Convenor, Director, SCERT on 3.7.2007 and a guideline
was prepared in the meetings. The norms for awarding the
scores and areas of interview questions were also discussed
and finalised in the meeting.
Guidelines for conducting interview:
a) Members from the approved panels may only be
included in the interview Board.
b) 5 Boards may be constituted from the panel to
conduct the interview.
c) There should be minimum 2 and maximum 3
members in each Board including the Chairman
d) The finalisation of scores may be completed in
the interview day itself and the Board Chairman may keep
the signed mark sheets under safe custody
e) The average of the interview scores shall be
signed by the Chairman and members.
W.P ( C) Nos. 26600, 27317, 27201, 27487 of 2006 & 6415, 6419,4308 of 2007
5
4. I heard the Learned counsel for the petitioners,
learned Government Pleader, the learned standing counsel for
the State Council as also the learned standing counsel for the
Open School.
5. Admittedly, all the petitioners have been appointed
either on a daily wage basis or on a contract basis. They were
not engaged/appointed pursuant to any notified selection
procedure. Orders of appointments have also not been placed on
record. Petitioners cannot claim any enforceable right to be
permitted to continue in service till regular appointments are
effected or claim regularization of their services. They cannot
seek to interdict the selection now undertaken by the
respondents to the various posts even if it is for appointment on
a daily wages or on a contract basis. I also take note of the stand
taken by the State Council in formulating Guidelines in
conducting selection to the various posts even if such selection is
for appointment on a provisional basis. Petitioners cannot
complain any disability in participating in such selection,
provided they are qualified for such posts.
W.P ( C) Nos. 26600, 27317, 27201, 27487 of 2006 & 6415, 6419,4308 of 2007
6
6. In the circumstances, I do not find any reason to
issue any directions to the respondents regarding the alleged
illegality or irregularity in the selection undertaken by the
respondents as notified under Exhibit P2. Petitioners have no
enforceable right as against the respondents on the strength of
their engagement/appointment on a daily wage basis. The law
laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka Vs.
Ms.Umadevi [2006 (4) SCC 1] also stands in the way of the
petitioners.
For all these, the writ petitions are bereft of merit and
therefore they are dismissed.
(V.GIRI, JUDGE)
ma
W.P ( C) Nos. 26600, 27317, 27201, 27487 of 2006 & 6415, 6419,4308 of 2007
7
W.P ( C) Nos. 26600, 27317, 27201, 27487 of 2006 & 6415, 6419,4308 of 2007
8
K.THANKAPPAN,J
CRL.A. NO.92 OF 1999
ORDER
W.P ( C) Nos. 26600, 27317, 27201, 27487 of 2006 & 6415, 6419,4308 of 2007
9
25th May, 2007