IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 3536 of 2007(U)
1. A.K. ABDULLA, S/O.MOIDU,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE
... Respondent
2. STATE PROJECT DIRECTOR,
3. DISTRICT PROJECT OFFICER,
4. BLOCK PROGRAMME OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.K.DENESAN
Dated :06/02/2007
O R D E R
K.K. DENESAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
W.P.(C) Nos.3536 & 3553 OF 2007
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 6th February, 2007
J U D G M E N T
The petitioners in these writ petitions are having
identical nature of grievance, viz., that their
services are proposed to be terminated without valid
reason.
2. Ext. P1 is the order of appointment by the
District Project Officer, Sarva Siksha Abhiyan,
Kozhikode. That order was issued on 26-11-2003. In
paragraph 2 of the appointment order the following
terms and conditions have been specifically stated:
i) The appointment is purely temporary.
ii) For the work done, the petitioners will be
entitled for a daily wage of Rs.120/-. If the
petitioners’ services are found not satisfactory, the
District Project Officer will have the right to
terminate the services without notice.
3. Relief prayed for by the petitioners include a
writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to
terminate the service of the petitioners.
4. Counsel for the petitioners contend that the
WPC Nos.3536 & 3553 /2006 -2-
appointment of the petitioners cannot be traced to Rule
9(a)(1)of K.S. & S.S.R, and that being the position,
the respondents cannot terminate the services on the
expiry of any fixed period.
5. It is true that the appointment cannot be
traced to Rule 9(a)(1) of K.S. & S.S.R., but that will
not improve the case of the petitioners. The terms and
conditions incorporated in Ext. P1 would show that they
are more disadvantageous to them than an appointment
made in terms of Rule 9(a)(1) of K.S. & S.S.R. Having
accepted the employment based on the terms in Ext. P1,
the petitioners cannot be heard to contend that they
are not bound by the terms and conditions thereof.
Since the petitioners have no legal right to continue
in employment unlike those appointed to a post, these
writ petitions are devoid of merit. Accordingly, they
are dismissed.
K.K. DENESAN
JUDGE
jan/