High Court Kerala High Court

Anu Pappachan vs State Of Kerala on 11 November, 2008

Kerala High Court
Anu Pappachan vs State Of Kerala on 11 November, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 33161 of 2008(W)


1. ANU PAPPACHAN, AGED 29 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DIRECTOR,

3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR,

4. THE PRINCIPAL,

                For Petitioner  :SMT.P.SHYNI

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN

 Dated :11/11/2008

 O R D E R
                    P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.
                   -------------------------
          W.P.(C.) Nos.33161 & 33203 of 2008
               ---------------------------------
       Dated, this the 11th day of November, 2008

                      J U D G M E N T

The petitioner in WP(C) No.33161/2008 is working as

Junior Instructor in the trade of Computer Operator and

Programming Assistant and the petitioner in WP(C)

No.33203/2008 is working as Junior Instructor in the Trade

of Network Technician, in the Industrial Training Institute for

Women, Kollam. The petitioner in WP(C) No.33203/2008 is

a person with disability. They were appointed in their

respective posts under Rule 9(a)(i) of Part-II of the Kerala

State and Subordinate Service Rules, for a period of one year

or till regular hands recruited through the Kerala Public

Service Commission join duty, whichever is earlier. In these

writ petitions, the petitioners pray that as no ranked list

published by the Commission is in existence and as their

services are required, the respondents may be directed to

retain them in service till regular hands join duty.

WP(C) No.33616 & 33203/2008
-2-

2. A Full Bench of this Court has in Radha Vs.

District Medical Officer, (2002(2) KLT 711), held that

provisional employees appointed under Rule 9(a)(i) have no

right to continue in service beyond the term for which they

are appointed. The 9th proviso to Rule 9(a)(i) of Part-II, KS

& SSR also prohibits such continuance. In the light of the

authoritative pronouncement of the Full Bench of this Court,

and the statutory provisions contained in the KS & SSR, the

reliefs prayed for by the petitioners in these writ petitions

cannot be granted. The writ petitions accordingly fail and

are dismissed.

(P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE)

jg