Dismissed

M.K.Jaffar and Others v. State of Kerala and Another

Kerala HC11 Dec 2008WP(C)/5749/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, appointed as daily wage clerks in 2004, sought regularisation. The Court held that since they were appointed after the Regulations came into force without following prescribed procedure, they could not claim regularisation. The Board was right in rejecting their claim.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed holding that petitioners cannot claim regularisation as their appointment did not comply with the regulations.

M.K.Jaffar and Others Vs State of Kerala and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 11TH DECEMBER 2008 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA 1930

¶5

WP(C).No. 5749 of 2008(H)

PETITIONERS:

M.K.JAFFAR, L.D. CLERK, KERALA STATE WAKF BOARD, REGIONAL OFFICE, KOZHIKODE.

¶10

S.I.SALEEMA, L.D.CLERK, KERALA STATE WAKF BOARD, REGIONAL OFFICE, KOZHIKODE.

¶11

A.SUBAIDA, LD CLERK, KERALA STATE WAKF BOARD, REGIONAL OFFICE, KOZHIKODE.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.)

SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW

RESPONDENTS:

STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE(F)DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶17

KERALA STATE WAKF BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, VIP ROAD, KALOOR, KCOCHI-682 017

¶18

ADV. SRI.P.A.ABDUL JABBAR, SC, WAKF BOARD FOR R2 SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. FOR ADDL.R

¶19

SRI.M.M.SAIDU MUHAMMED,SC,WAKF BOARD FOR R.2

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

P.N.RAVINDRAN, J

¶22

W.P.(C) NO: 5749 of 2008

¶23

Dated this 11^th day of December, 2008

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

Heard Sri.Mathews Jacob, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners, Smt.T.B.Remani, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent, Sri.Zyed Mohammed, the learned standing counsel appearing for the second respondent and Sri.Elvin Peter P.J, the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent.

¶26

The petitioners are Lower Division Clerks employed in the Regional Office of the Kerala State Wakf Board, Kozhikode on daily wage basis. They were appointed on 28.04.2004, 18.12.2004 and 18.12.2004 respectively. The petitioners claim that they were appointed after their names were sponsored by the employment exchange and after a test and interview conducted by the Board. In this writ petition, the petitioners claim regularisation in service. They rely on Ext.P2 order passed by the Board on 12.12.2006 whereby the Board regularised the services of the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.30379 of 2005 and of Sri.C.E.Ismail as Lower Division Clerk in the Head Office of the Board at Ernakulam.

¶27

Respondents 2 and 3 resist the writ petition. Regulation 11 of the Kerala State Wakf Board Regulations hereinafter referred to as the “Regulations” for short, stipulates that appointment to the various categories of posts shall be made only after the vacancies are notified in two Malayalam newspapers and that selection shall be based on written

¶28

wpc:5749 of 2008

¶29

¶30

test and interview conducted by a sub committee constituted by the Board. The maximum marks to be awarded for the written test and interview are also set out in the Regulations. Though the Chairman of the Board is conferred with the power to appoint employees otherwise than under Regulation 11, such appointment can be made only for a period not exceeding 90 days. The Board is also empowered to make provisional appointments for a period not exceeding 180 days. The Chief Executive Officer of the Board is also permitted to engage last grade servants on daily wages for a period not exceeding a continuous period of 30 days. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent Board submits that the petitioners who were appointed in 2004 without following the procedure prescribed in the Regulations cannot continue in service or seek regularisation in service.

¶31

Sri.P.J.Elvin Peter, the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent submits that the Board had invited applications from eligible persons for appointment to the category of Lower Division Clerk and that the third respondent had applied pursuant to such notification. The learned counsel further submits that in view of the provisions contained in the Regulations the petitioners cannot seek or be granted regularisation in service.

¶32

I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel appearing on either side. Sri.Mathews Jacob, the learned senior advocate relying on the direction issued by this Court in Ext.P1 judgment

¶33

wpc:5749 of 2008 3

¶34

and the decision taken by the Board in Ext.P2 order dated 12-12-2006 contends that as the petitioners are similarly placed as the beneficiaries of Ext.P2 order, the stand taken by the Board in Ext.P3 cannot be sustained. I find no merit in the said contention. Ext.P1 judgment and the recitals in Ext.P2 disclose that the beneficiaries of Ext.P2 were appointed prior to the date on which the Regulations came into force. The petitioners herein were appointed only in the year 2004 long after the Regulations came into force. They were appointed only on daily wage basis without following the procedure prescribed in Regulation 17 of the Regulations. Therefore, the said appointment cannot confer on them any right to be regularised in service. The claim made by them was rightly rejected by the Board. In view of the Regulations the Board could not have granted the reliefs sought for by the petitioners. Ext.P3 order is therefore, in my considered opinion unassailable. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. It is clarified that if the Chief Executive Officer of the Board is desirous of engaging the petitioners on daily wage basis, it will be open to him to engage them on such basis subject to the condition that such engagement will not confer on them any right to seek regularisation in service.

¶35

P.N.RAVINDRAN,

¶36

JUDGE

¶37

bps

M.K.Jaffar and Others v. State of Kerala and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.K.Jaffar and Others v. State of Kerala and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.H.Phiroskhan Vs State of Kerala

A.Kunhikari Vs State of Kerala and Others

Jini.K.Varghese Vs State of Kerala & Ors.

G.Vijayakumar and Others Vs State of Kerala and Others

Sankaran Namboothiri N.S. Vs Travancore Devaswom Board

K.a.Adamkhan Vs State of Kerala