This High Court Union Territories Bench dismissed a writ petition seeking regularization of the petitioner's services as a watchman. The Court held that engagement without the Employment Exchange Act process was invalid and cited Supreme Court precedent.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC
TUESDAY, THE 15TH MARCH 2011 / 24TH PHALGUNA 1932
WP(C).No. 31510 of 2004(A) --------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-----------------------
JAYAKUMAR, S/O.YOVAL, AGED 35, CHEMBAMAN PARAMBIL, PERIYIL, PEYAD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP SRI.V.VIJULAL
RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------
1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2. THE SECRETARY, THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, CIVIL SUB DIVISION NO.1M VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
4. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER-1, CIVIL DIVISION, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
ADV. SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM, SC, KSEB FOR R1 TO R4 SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB FOR R1TOR4
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WPC NO.31510/04
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
| EXT.P1: TE PETITIO |
TRUE COPY OF CONTRACT FROM 24.7.93 TO 23.10.93 BY WHICH NER WAS INITIALLY EMPLOYED. |
|---|---|
| EXT.P2: PETITIONE |
TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE DATED 22.8.96 ISSUED TO THE R BY 3RD RESPONDENT. |
| EXT.P3: | TRUE COPY OF CONTRACT FROM 27.6.96 TO 22.12.96. |
| EXT.P4: BOARD. |
TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR DTD.14.7.1996 ISSUED BY THE |
| EXT.P5: | TRUE COPY OF CONTRACT FROM 25.3.97 TO 23.4.97. |
| EXT.P6: | TRUE COPY OF CONTRACT FROM 25.4.97 TO 24.5.97. |
| EXT.P7: | TRUE COPY OF CONTRACT FROM 26.7.97 TO 24.9.97. |
| EXT.P8: | TRUE COPY OF CONTRACT FROM 26.9.97 TO 24.11.97. |
| EXT.P9: | TRUE COPY OF CONTRACT FROM 26.11.97 TO 25.12.97. |
| EXT.P10: | TRUE COPY OF CONTRACT FROM 27.12.97 TO 25.01.98. |
| EXT.P11: | TRUE COPY OF CONTRACT FROM 27.01.98 TO 25.02.98. |
| EXT.P12: | TRUE COPY OF CONTRACT FROM 30.03.98 TO 28.4.98. |
| EXT.P13: | TRUE COPY OF CONTRACT FROM 01.08.98 TO 30.08.98. |
| EXT.P14: | TRUE COPY OF CONTRACT FROM 01.09.98 TO 30.9.98. |
| EXT.P15: | TRUE COPY OF CONTRACT FROM 2.10.98 TO 31.10.98. |
| EXT.P16: | TRUE COPY OF CONTRACT FROM 2.11.98 TO 01.12.98. |
| EXT.P17: | TRUE COPY OF CONTRACT FROM 3.12.98 TO 01.01.99. |
| EXT.P18: | TRUE COPY OF CONTRACT FROM 03.01.99 TO 1.02.99. |
| EXT.P19: | TRUE COPY OF CONTRACT FROM 3.2.99 TO 4.3.99. |
| EXT.P20: | TRUE COPY OF CONTRACT FROM 6.3.99 TO 4.4.99. |
| EXT.P21: | TRUE COPY OF CONTRACT FROM 6.4.99 TO 5.5.99. |
WPC NO.31510/04
-2-
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
Rp
ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 31510 OF 2004
=====================
Dated this the 15th day of March, 2011
J U D G M E N T
The respondents engaged the petitioner as a Watchman on contract basis. It would appear that such arrangement commenced from 1993 and continued till 2004. By virtue of Exts.P1 to P45 contracts, he continued in service with breaks. As the contract was not renewed on expiry of the period specified in Ext.P45, petitioner filed this writ petition mainly praying that his services should be regularized.
WPC No. 31510/04
:2 :
of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
Writ petition is dismissed.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner, engaged on a contract basis as a watchman from 1993 to 2004 without Employment Exchange, could claim regularization of his services.
Whether regularization of employees engaged through the back door in public service is permissible under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
JAYAKUMAR
THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
ANTONY DOMINIC
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
