IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 32566 of 2008(B)
1. SOJAN.K, VALIYAVILAPADEETATHIL,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL
... Respondent
2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
3. BRANCH MANAGER,
For Petitioner :SRI.A.N.RAJAN BABU
For Respondent :SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :03/02/2009
O R D E R
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J.
-------------------------
W.P ( C) No.32566 of 2008
--------------------------
Dated this the 3rd February,2009
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner was engaged as a Part-time Sweeper by
the 1st respondent from the date of opening of
Chakkuvally branch. The branch was opened on 5.9.2005.
According to the petitioner, from 27.10.2005 onwards he
was appointed as casual worker. He continued till August
2007 there, which is evidenced by Exhibit-P1, true copy of
the attendance register relating to him. Apprehending
termination of service by accommodating another person
named Saleela in his place, petitioner filed writ petition
WPC No.1365 of 2006. Initially this Court passed an
interim order as per Ext. P3 allowing him to continue in
the branch as Part-time Sweeper if he is not already
transferred from that branch. The said writ petition was
disposed of as per Ext. P4 judgment. This Court disposed
of the writ petition recording the stand taken in the
counter affidavit that the petitioner will be terminated
W.P ( C) No.32566 of 2008
2
only to accommodate a regular hand. According to the
petitioner, Smt.Saleela who was a junior to the petitioner,
joined as Part-time Sweeper only on 31.10.2005 was
regularized in service by the 1st respondent. This is
evidenced by Exhibit-P5. According to the petitioner
several of his juniors have been regularized in service but
his claim has not been considered.. He has filed Exhibit-P5
representation before the 2nd respondent. Pending
consideration of the same he was relieved from service.
According to the petitioner, there are various vacancies
remaining unfilled in other branches of the 1st respondent.
2. Respondents have filed a counter affidavit
traversing the contentions raised by the petitioner. It is
submitted that the 1st respondent is a Government company
and as far as recruitment of employees to different posts
are concerned it is governed by recruitment rules framed
by them. So far as the post of Part Time Sweeper is
concerned recruitment in respect of that post is to be made
by a selection by way of interview from the list of
candidates advised by the local employment exchange.
W.P ( C) No.32566 of 2008
3
Exhibit R2 (a) is the copy of recruitment rules framed by
the 1st respondent. It is pointed out that apprehending
termination of various Part Time Sweepers who were
engaged in different branches had approached this Court
seeking for regularization in service. Exhibits R2 (b) (c ) (d)
are copies of judgments in O.P. Nos.29871 of 2001 and
connected cases. Ultimately, the Government framed a
scheme for regularization as per Exhibit R2 (f). The same is
dated 20.12.2005. According to the said scheme a direction
was issued to regularize the services of 170 Part Time
Sweepers engaged by the 1st respondent between
30.10.2000 and 31.8.2005. It is also pointed out that after
the scheme was framed, there was a complaint raised by
one Viswambaran before the Lok Ayuktha, complaining
about the irregularities in the matter of regularization.
3. The counter affidavit shows that the person
named Smt.Saleela is also a beneficiary of Exhibit R2 (f)
Government Order. Even though she commenced service
only on 31.10.2005 and is junior to the petitioner, she
stands benefited by Exhibit R2 (f) Government Order.
W.P ( C) No.32566 of 2008
4
Seeking for the benefit of said Government Order, she had
approached this Court by filing WPC No.11923 of 2006
wherein, by interim order dated 28.4.2006 marked as
Exhibit R2 (g), this Court directed the 1st respondent to
accommodate the petitioner as Part-time Sweeper-cum
Sanitation worker either in the Head Office or in any of the
branches of the respondent therein. Accordingly, she was
permitted to join duty. This writ petition was subsequently
disposed of by Exhibit R2(h) whereby the matter has been
closed as infructuous.
4. This is a case where petitioner is not benefited
by the Scheme for regularization covered as per Exhibit R2
(f). It is true that person named Saleela who commenced
service at a later point of time than the petitioner was
benefited by Exhibit R2 (f). Any way, the petitioner is not
challenging the order of regularization in favour of the said
person in this writ petition. Therefore, I am not called
upon to decide the validity of Exhibit R2 (f) as far as the
inclusion of the said person is concerned.
W.P ( C) No.32566 of 2008
5
5. I am concerned only with the right, if any, for
regularization of the petitioner. As the 1st respondent is
bound to implement Exhibit R2 (f) only, they cannot be
faulted in the matter and the non-grant of regularization is
because of absence of any other scheme with regard to
persons like the petitioner. Any fresh recruitment by the 1st
respondent can only be done in accordance with the
recruitment rules framed by the Government.
6. In that view of the matter, petitioner is not
entitled for any relief in this writ petition and the same is
dismissed.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the petitioner may be allowed to move the Government
for appropriate reliefs in the matter. The said remedy is
left open.
(T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,
JUDGE)
ma
W.P ( C) No.32566 of 2008
6
W.P ( C) No.32566 of 2008
7