Dismissed

Lakshmi v. the Director

Kerala HC4 Nov 2013WP(C)/20672/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought appointment in a permanent vacancy as an Anganvady Helper based on prior temporary service. The High Court held she has no right to regularization merely from past engagement but is permitted to participate in the ongoing regular selection process.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the third respondent to consider the petitioner's candidature for the selection process.

Lakshmi Vs the Director — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR

¶4

MONDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013/13TH KARTHIKA, 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 20672 of 2013 (H)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

LAKSHMI,

¶8

W/O.PRASANNAKUMAR, PULLAZHATHU MEKKU (H) THEKKUMBHAGAM, CHAVARA SOUTH, KOLLAM (DIST.)

¶9

BY ADV. SMT.G.VIDYA

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

THE DIRECTOR, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN-695001.

¶12

THE DISTRICT SOCIAL WELFARE OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT SOCIAL WELFARE, KOLLAM (DIST) PIN-691001.

¶13

THE ICDS OFFICER/PROJECT OFFICER, CHAVARA, KOLLAM (DIST.), PIN-691583.

¶14

BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.A.FAYAZ

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-11-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C).No. 20672 of 2013 (H)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶19

P1: COPY OF THE EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 20.5.2013.

¶20

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

// TRUE COPY //

TKS

P.S. TO JUDGE

C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J.

¶25

W.P.(C)No.20672 of 2013 ------------------------------Dated 4^th November, 2013

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

The petitioner is presently working on temporary basis as Anganvady Helper under the third respondent. Earlier, while working as Anganvady Helper under the third respondent, her service was terminated on 29.4.2013 and one Bhanumathi was appointed in her place. Consequent to the retirement of the said Bhanumathi there occurred vacancy in the post of Anganvady Helper in Thekkumbhagam Grama Panchayat and selection process was initiated to fill up that vacancy. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to appoint her in the permanent vacancy occurred under the third respondent in the post of Anganvady Helper taking into account her previous experience.

¶28

A statement has been filed on behalf of the third respondent in this writ petition. It is admitted therein that consequent to the retirement of one Bhanumathy a vacancy of Anganvady Helper occurred in Thekkumbhagam Grama Panchayat. It is further stated therein that besides the said vacancy two other vacancies also occurred under the third respondent. Steps were already taken to fill up those

¶29

¶30

WP(C).No.20672/2013

¶31

vacancies on regular basis. In the said statement it is made clear that it would be open to the petitioner to participate in the selection process for effecting regular appointment to the post of Anganvady Workers/Helpers on permanent basis for which steps were already taken. It is also stated therein that the provision for giving weightage for the experience has now been dispensed with as per G.O.(Ms)No.31/12/SWD dated 30.05.2012. At any rate, it is evident from the statement filed by the third respondent that steps are already taken for filling up the existing vacancies under the third respondent on a regular basis and that the petitioner can also participate in the said selection process. It is admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader that during the pendency of this writ petition the petitioner has been temporarily engaged under the third respondent.

¶32

Having heard the rival submissions, I am of the view that the petitioner cannot, as a matter of right, claim for regularisation solely based on her earlier engagement for a period of six months. As stated by the third respondent in the statement the limited right of the petitioner is only to participate in the regular process of selection which the respondents have already initiated. In the said circumstances,

¶33

WP(C).No.20672/2013 3

¶34

recording the said submissions made in the statement filed by the third respondent that the petitioner can participate in the regular process of selection this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the third respondent to consider the petitioner's candidature for selection to the aforesaid posts in case she offers her candidature.

¶35

Sd/C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge

¶36

TKS

Lakshmi v. the Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lakshmi v. the Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M. Ibrayi Vs State of Kerala

Bindu Sooraj Vs State of Kerala

Manoj Kumar.P.R Vs Kerala State Electricity Board

V.K.Asokan Vs State of Kerala

V.T.Gigimon Vs the State of Kerala

The Manager, Sreekrishnapuram Higher Secondary School Vs the State of Kerala