IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 1585 of 2009(L)
1. M.SAROJINI
... Petitioner
Vs
1. DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL WELFARE
... Respondent
2. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, DEPARTMENT OF
For Petitioner :SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :28/10/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
------------------
WP(C) No.1585 of 2009
--------------------------
Dated, this the 28th day of October, 2009
------------------------------
J U D G M E N T
In response to a requisition made to the District Employment
Exchange, Kasaragod, the petitioner’s name was sponsored for the
post of Cook in the Old Age Home of the Social Welfare Department
at Kasaragod. She was selected and was appointed to that post with
effect from 17/06/1999. Though the appointment was temporary,
she continued in that post, and subsequently by Ext.P1 order dated
05/07/2000, the 1st respondent, the Head of the Department,
ordered regularisation of her appointment with effect from
17/06/1999.
2. A reading of this order shows that the regularisation was
ordered on the basis of the recommendation of the Superintendent
of the Old Age Home, who also confessed that it was on account of
a mistake committed by him that despite the fact that the Director is
the appointing authority, he ordered appointment of the petitioner.
Accordingly, the petitioner continued in service, and Ext.P2
WP(C) No.1585/2009
-2-
certificate issued on 11/06/2001 shows that she had completed
probation satisfactorily.
3. While continuing in service as above, the 1st respondent
issued Ext.P3, which is styled as a notice, stating that one
Mr.P.P.Chandran made a complaint to the Vigilance and Anti
Corruption Bureau, and that the Vigilance and Anti Corruption
Bureau on enquiry found that there were irregularities in the
appointment of the petitioner. It is stated that based on the report
submitted by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, it has been
decided to terminate the services of the petitioner, and on that
basis, she was called upon to show cause why her services shall not
be terminated. It is on receipt of this communication, that this writ
petition has been filed.
4. At the stage of admission, this Court granted a stay of
further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P3, and that the position
continued even now.
5. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent.
It is stated that the post of Cook, against which the petitioner was
appointed, was a permanent post, and the mode of appointment is
WP(C) No.1585/2009
-3-
through Employment Exchange. It is stated that the petitioner was
initially appointed on a temporary basis, and that later on
considering the request made by the petitioner, the temporary
appointment was regularised by the Director of Social Welfare. It is
also stated that a complaint was received from one
Shri.P.P.Chandran, who was a candidate appeared for interview for
the post of Cook in the subsequent list submitted by the
Employment Exchange. It is stated that in the enquiry, certain
procedural irregularities were found in as much as prior to the
appointment, the Superintendent of the Old Age Home did not take
steps to make a Statewide circulation of the vacancy through the
Employment Exchange to collect a list of eligible candidates. It is
stated that on the basis of the Vigilance report, the Government
found that the appointment of the petitioner was irregular, and on
that basis, it was decided to terminate her services.
6. A reading of the counter affidavit would therefore show
that it was on account of the irregularities committed either by the
Superintendent of the Old Age Home or the Director of the Social
Welfare Department that the appointment of the petitioner is
WP(C) No.1585/2009
-4-
decided to be terminated. The respondents have no case that the
post was not a permanent one or that the petitioner was not
sponsored by the Employment Exchange or that the petitioner was
ineligible or unsuitable for the post in question. In such a situation,
in my view, even if irregularities have been committed by the
departmental authorities, the right course to be adopted by the
respondents is to proceed against the Officers, who committed
irregularities, and not to make the appointee a scape goat by
ordering termination. In this case, this is precisely what is
happened, and for that reason, I am inclined to think that the
proceedings resulting in Ext.P3, cannot be sustained. Ext.P3,
therefore, will stand set aside.
But, however, this judgment will not stand in the way of the
respondents in initiating proceedings against the officers, who are
responsible for the alleged irregularities resulting in Ext.P3.
This writ petition is allowed as above.
(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
jg