Padmakumari G.S vs State Of Kerala on 19 February, 2007

Kerala High Court
Padmakumari G.S vs State Of Kerala on 19 February, 2007




WP(C) No. 34272 of 2006(E)

                      ...  Petitioner


                       ...       Respondent



                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.P.RAJEEVAN

                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.K.DENESAN

 Dated :19/02/2007

 O R D E R
                               K.K.DENESAN, J


                       W.P.(C)NO.34272  of 2006


            Dated this the 19th   day  of  February, 2007


The petitioner was appointed as Hospital Attender in the

Government Ayurveda Dispensary. The designation of the

petitioner is wrongly shown in the writ petition as Hospital

Attendant. This wrong statement will go to the root of the matter,

for nomenclature of the post is the most relevant factor. The

former post viz., Hospital Attendant is included in the special

rules i.e. Kerala Indigenous Medicine Subordinate Service

(amendment) Rules 1983. Under the above rules, Attender

Grade-I is category 11 and Attender Grade II is category 12.

Hospital Attendant in the Health Services Department is a post

coming within the last grade service.

2. One of the methods of recruitment to the post of Hospital

Attendant as laid down in the Last Grade Service Rules is direct

W.P.(C)No.34272/2006 :2:

recruitment from candidates sponsored by the Employment

Exchange hands as well, whereas the post of Attender Grade II

which comes within the subordinate service is a promotion post

of last grade service people. As far as posts within the last grade

service are concerned, Rule 9 of KS&SSR has no application. The

post of Attender Grade II which comes within the subordinate

service is governed by Rule 9 as also the other provisions of the

KS&SSR. The petitioner was appointed as per Ext.P1 order for a

period of 179 days. Evidently, the term prescribed has relevance

in the context of Rule 9, as aforesaid. The term of the service of

the petitioner was extended as per Ext.P2, on completion of 179

days, making it clear that the further term will also be for 179

days or Public Service Commission hands join duty.

3. The contention raised by the petitioner is based on the

decision of this Court in Vasanthi v state of Kerala (2006(1)

KLT 288). Necessarily, the thrust is on the rights available under

the provisions of the Special Rules for Last Grade Service. For

reasons aforesaid, the said rules will not have any application to

W.P.(C)No.34272/2006 :3:

the facts of this case. On the other hand, the provision which has

application is Rule-9 of KS&SSR. That being the position, the

petitioner cannot contend that she is eligible to continue in

service, as though, she has been appointed on a regular basis.

The distortion of facts by the petitioner to mislead this Court

deserves to be taken serious note of and dealt with by imposing

exemplary costs. I dismiss this writ petition. However,without

any order as to costs, because the petitioner hails from poor

circumstances and what she could gain is wages for a few more

days work in one of the lowest categories in service; on the

strength of the interim order. The petitioner is warned not to

indulge in such gimmicks hereafter.


W.P.(C)No.34272/2006 :4:

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information