IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
OP.No. 24379 of 2002(B)
1. A.P. ASHAKOSH, PLAVILA VEEDU,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED
... Respondent
2. STATE INSTITUTE OF LANGUAGES
3. DIRECTOR OF STATE INSTITUTE OF
For Petitioner :SRI.N.DHARMADAN (SR.)
For Respondent :SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :30/05/2008
O R D E R
C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
--------------------------------------------
O.P. NO. 24379 OF 2002
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 30th day of May, 2008
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is challenging the regularisation of respondents 4 to 10
in the service of respondents 2 and 3. Senior counsel appearing for the
petitioner contended that there was earlier round of litigation regarding
regularisation of service of these respondents and this Court vide
Exts.P2 and P3 judgments closed the O.Ps. as infructuous because of
the statement of counsel appearing for the parties that Managing
Committee of third respondent vide their decision taken on 5.10.2001
decided to terminate the services of all temporary and contract
employees. In the first place, it is clear from Ext.P2 judgment in
O.P.No.574 of 1996 that the challenge was against appointment of
class IV employees whereas fourth respondent was appointed as class
III employee and her service was regularised on 11.1.1996. The
challenge against her appointment and regularisation was dismissed
today by me vide judgment in WPC 25090 of 2004. So far as other
respondents are concerned, the position is nsot different because the
2
decision taken on 5.10.2001 was to terminate the service of 13 persons
who had temporary and contract employment with the third respondent.
However, the services of respondents 5 to 10 were regularised along
with others in the decision of the Managing committee of the third
respondent taken on 11.1.1996. It is seen that regularisation of service
was made pursuant to interim order of this Court in CMP 974 of 1996
in OP 574 of 1996 issued on 9.4.1996, produced as Ext.R5(b) in this
O.P. It is seen that respsondents 5 to 10 were not impleaded as
respondents in that O.P. and respondents after filing impleading
petition sought for vacation of the interim order, which was allowed by
this Court. Strangely, petitioners who filed the said O.P. had no
objection against regularisation of service of employees in 1996. The
present O.P. is filed by another person in 2002 contesting the
regularisation of service of respondents made on 11.1.1996. Even
though senior counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that
regularisation of service of respondents 5 to 10 is not in accordance
with rules, I do not propose to go into the same, as the O.P. has to be
rejected on the ground of delay itself. Admittedly respsondents 5 to 10
3
along with others were regularised on 11.1.1996 and the petitioner has
chosen to challenge the same only after six years of regularisation of
their service. It is reported that respondents were appointed from 1989
on temporary basis and there is no scope for interfering with the
appointment made several years back and regularised on 11.1.1996.
O.P. is therefore dismissed as devoid of any merit.
(C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR)
Judge
kk
4