IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 6510 of 2009(G)
1. LALGIMON K.C., WATCHER-CUM-PEON,
... Petitioner
2. N.V.ANILKUMAR, WATCHER-CUM-PEON,
3. K.J.VARGHESE, WATCHER-CUM-PEON,
4. S.SACHEENDRA BABU, WATCHER-CUM-PEON,
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS
... Respondent
2. THE INSTITUTE OF HUMAN RESOURCES,
For Petitioner :SRI.M.A.FIROZ
For Respondent :SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :07/07/2009
O R D E R
T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
W.P.(C). No.6510/2009-G
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dated this the 7th day of July, 2009
J U D G M E N T
The petitioners herein are aggrieved by the action taken by the
respondents, rejecting their claim for regularisation in the service with effect
from the date of their initial appointment. They are also challenging
Ext.P10 notification.
2. Heard both sides. The petitioners submit that they have been
working from the year 2001-02 on daily wage basis. Exts.P1 to P4 are the
copies of the appointment orders. The initial period of appointment was for
179 days and it was extended during different spells which is evidenced by
Exts.P5 to P7. Ext.P10 is the notification issued by the second respondent
inviting applications for filling up the vacancies of Last Grade Employees.
It is in these circumstances they have approached this Court seeking for
regularisation in service.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the decision
of the Apex Court reported in U.P. State Electricity Board v. Pooran
Chandra Pandey [2007 (4) KLT 513 (SC)] to contend for the position that
they are entitled for regularisation in service.
W.P.(C). No.6510/2009
-:2:-
4. In the statement filed on behalf of the second respondent, it is
pointed out that the petitioners were terminated from service as their service
was no longer required. It is pointed out that in the light of the directions
issued by this Court in the judgment in W.P.(C).No.29063/2006 and
connected cases dated 13/07/2007, the existing vacancies were notified
through print media. The ad hoc employees who were engaged under IHRD
were given weightage as per new employment policies. It is pointed out
that accordingly, ranked list will be prepared and the same will be on the
basis of performance of the applicants in the written test and interview. It is
therefore, submitted that the second respondent has taken action only in
accordance with the directions of this Court in the judgment referred above.
5. True that in the decision of the Apex Court in U.P. State
Electricity Board’s case [2007 (4) KLT 513 (SC)], the violation of Article
14 of the Constitution of India was considered, but the said view has not
been accepted in later decisions. In light of the above and in view of the
fact that the second respondent has taken a decision in accordance with the
directions issued by this Court in W.P.(C).No.29063/2006 and connected
cases, there cannot said to be any illegality in Ext.P10 notification. The
petitioners were admittedly engaged only on daily wage basis for a period
W.P.(C). No.6510/2009
-:3:-
of 179 days which was extended from time to time. It is well settled that
the said appointment will not confer any right for regularisation in service.
The said position is clear from the decision of the Apex Court in Secretary,
State of Karnataka & Ors. v.Uma Devi (3) & Ors. [(2006) 4 SCC 1].
Therefore the writ petition is dismissed.
(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)
ms