High Court Kerala High Court

C.A.Sathian vs State Of Kerala Represented By on 23 December, 2010

Kerala High Court
C.A.Sathian vs State Of Kerala Represented By on 23 December, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 38289 of 2010(I)


1. C.A.SATHIAN, AGED 47 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,

3. VARANDARAPPILLY GRAMA PANCHAYATH,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.T.DINESH

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

 Dated :23/12/2010

 O R D E R
                          S. SIRI JAGAN, J.
                 -----------------------------------
                    W.P.(C) No.38289 OF 2010
               ---------------------------------------
          Dated this the 23rd day of December, 2010

                             JUDGMENT

The petitioner is a driver appointed on daily wages in the

third respondent Panchayat. According to the petitioner, there is

no permanent post of driver in the Panchayat and therefore, the

Panchayat is engaging a driver on daily wage basis. He would

therefore submit that it is unjust and illegal to terminate his

service to engage another person on daily wage basis. According

to the petitioner, he was selected after a selection process and

therefore, except for accommodating a regular hand after

sanctioning of the post of driver in the Panchayat the petitioner’s

service cannot be terminated, which is proposed by the

Panchayat. The petitioner, therefore, seeks the following reliefs:

“(i) Declare that the petitioner’s service cannot be
terminated from the post of Jeep Driver on daily wage
basis by the respondents based on Ext.P7 Government
Order or based on the change of governing council of the
3rd respondent Grama Panchayath in the recent election.

(ii) Declare that Ext.P7 Government Order is not
applicable in the case of the petitioner.

(iii) Declare that petitioner is appointed as Jeep Driver
on daily wage basis by the 3rd respondent through a duly

W.P.(C)No.38289/10 2

conducted selection process known to law.

(iv) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the
respondents not to terminate the service of the
petitioner on the basis of Ext.P7 or on the basis of the
change of governing council of the 3rd respondent
Grama Panchayath in the recent election until a
regular hand is appointed after sanction of the post of
Driver and selection by the Kerala Public Service
Commission or the 3rd respondent Panchayath
continues to require the service of drivers.”

2. Employment to the post of driver in a Panchayat

even if temporary is a public employment. All eligible persons

are entitled to be given an opportunity to compete for

appointment to that post. Therefore, for such public

appointment a selection process known to law is mandatory,

failing which the same would violate the fundamental rights of

those eligible persons under Articles 14 and 16 of the

Constitution of India.

I am unable to accept Ext.P1(a) as a proper selection

process, in so far as that notice has been admittedly published

only in the Notice Board of the Panchayat and other

Government Offices. I do not think that, that would be

sufficient publication of the notice inviting applications, in so

far as one cannot except the eligible persons to visit those

offices daily to be informed about such a notice. Therefore,

W.P.(C)No.38289/10 3

properly the notification should have been published in one of

the newspapers having circulation in the locality. In so far as

that has not been done, the same cannot be accepted as a

selection process. That being so, the petitioner cannot hope to

continue the present daily wage employment. The Panchayat

is bound to engage further persons after a selection process

known to law namely, by publication of the notice in

newspapers and considering all applicants in accordance with

their merit. The same having not been done while

appointing the petitioner, I am not inclined to entertain this

writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed.

S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

acd

W.P.(C)No.38289/10 4

W.P.(C)No.38289/10 5