In an original petition, Departmental Authorities challenged the Kerala Administrative Tribunal's order granting regular appointment to a retrenched Police follower based on prior litigation precedents and vacancy rules preventing dismissal.
O.P. dismissed; Tribunal's order upholding the respondent's appointment stand affirmed.
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 P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON &
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE 2016/13TH JYAISHTA, 1938H
OP(KAT).No. 72 of 2016 (Z)
AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA 2058/2015 of KERALA ADMINISTRATIVETRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 09-02-2016
PETITIONER(S):
BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. M. MUHAMMED SHAFI
RESPONDENT(S):
JAYAN T.K, S/O KOCHAYYAPPAN, AGED 45 YEARS, CAMP FOLLOWER (WATER CARRIER) RETRENCHED, KERALA ARMED POLICE 1ST BATTALION, RAMAVARMAPURAM, THRISSUR, KERALA 680631. CURRENTLY RESIDING AT THOTTATHIL VEEDU, CHENGALOOR P.O., PUTHUKKAD VIA THRISSUR 680 312, KERALA
THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP(KAT).No. 72 of 2016 (Z) --------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS : EXT. P1 – A TRUE COPY OF THE O.A. NO. 2058/2015 ALONG WITH ITS ANNEXURES EXT. P2 – MA FOR PRODUCTION OF ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS EXT. P3 – A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE 2ND APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT DATED 19.1.16 EXT. P4 – A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN OA NO. 2058/2015 DATED 9.2.2016
/TRUE COPY/
P.A TO JUDGE
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON
&
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JJ.
JUDGMENT
Ramachandra Menon, J.
The direction given by the Tribunal while allowing the O.A. filed by the respondent to give regular appointment in the vacancy resulted because of the promotion given to one Bharathan N.M., which was kept pending pursuant to the interim order dated 30.11.2015, is under challenge at the instance of the petitioners.
the second petitioner sent a requisition to the Employment Exchange for filling up the post of Camp Followers (Water Carrier), which was
O.P.(KAT) No. 72 of 2016
: 2 :
the prescribed mode for appointment for filling up regular vacancies as per the Special Rules, when there was no eligible hand to be promoted as per the Rules. Pursuant to the said requisition, candidates were sponsored by the Employment Exchange. After the written test and interview, eligible persons were selected and appointed, as per Annexure A1 order dated 07.12.2012, wherein it was stipulated that the appointment would be only for a period of 179 days or till the PSC hands joined duty, whichever was earlier. When the tenure was about to be over, apprehending cessation of service, the beneficiaries including the respondent herein approached the KAT by filing O.A. No. 485 of 2013, which was disposed of as per Annexure A2 verdict dated 05.08.2013, whereby the status of the applicants 1 to 6 and 10 to 14 therein was ordered to be treated as 'regular appointment' while the claim of the applicants 7 to 9 (the applicant having been shown as 7th applicant), who were retrenched for want of vacancy, was left open, permitting to pursue the remedy before the departmental authority.
O.P.(KAT) No. 72 of 2016
: 3 :
to be rejected as per Annexure A5 order dated 14.03.2014. In the meanwhile, two other similarly situated persons i.e. applicants 8 and 9 to Annexure A2 approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. Nos. 438 of 2014 and O.A. No. 842 of 2014, which culminated in Annexure A6 judgment, whereby a positive declaration was given to the effect that they were entitled to be regularised in service. Pursuant to the said order, service of those applicants were also regularized. The respondent herein being aggrieved of Annexure A5 order dated 14.03.2014 approached the Tribunal by filing M.A., referring to the sequence of events and the finality attained pursuant to the orders passed by the Tribunal, more so, in view of the interference declined by this Court in the original petition preferred against the verdict in O.A. No. 1699 of 2012 and connected cases. The benefit was extended to the applicants in relation to Annexure A6 judgment, also referring to the similar course of action and the finality arrived at in the earlier round of litigation. It was after considering the facts and figures, that Ext. P4 order came to be passed by the Tribunal, directing the respondent to be accommodated in the vacancy arisen pursuant to the promotion given to one Bharathan N.M, which had been
O.P.(KAT) No. 72 of 2016
: 4 :
ordered to be kept pending as per the interim order dated 30.11.2015. This in turn is under challenge in this original petition.
O.P.(KAT) No. 72 of 2016
: 5 :
right of re-employment as and when the vacancy arose . It was accordingly, that the rights were declared as per the verdict passed by the Tribunal ordering regularization of the concerned persons appointed as per Annexure A1, though the appointment order had stipulated that appointment was only for a period of 179 days. In other words, this is an exception to the normal Rule of 9 (a) (i) of Part II of the K.S. & S.S.R, where there is no eligibility for getting regular appointment. The rights and liberties of the persons like the respondent herein came to be declared by the Tribunal by passing order in O.A. No. 1699 of 2012. It is pointed out that, though the said verdict was sought to be challenged before this Court, interference was declined and the O.P. was dismissed. It is also seen from the proceedings before this Court that there was an attempt to approach the Supreme Court as well, but the same also did not turn to be fruitful. The learned Government Pleader conceded that, though the post was left to the purview of the PSC, as per Government Order dated 20.06.2011, the relevant Rules had not been formulated pursuant to the said exercise at the relevant time.
O.P.(KAT) No. 72 of 2016
: 6 :
is entitled to get similar benefit as flowing from Annexure A6 verdict as extended to the persons named therein. There is no case for the petitioner/State that the verdict passed in the case of the applicants in Annexure A6 has been subjected to challenge by them or that interference has been made by this Court or by the Apex Court. On the contrary, it is conceded that all other persons included in Annexure A1 have been given regularization, pursuant to the orders passed and the only one who has been left out is the respondent herein. This Court finds that the respondent is also entitled to have similar benefit, being situated on similar pedestal, which alone has been ordered by the Tribunal as per Exhibit A4 order. It is also relevant to note that the vacancy arose pursuant to the promotion given to one N.M. Bharathan was ordered to be kept pending as per order dated 30.11.2015 and if the respondent is given appointment, absolutely no prejudice whatsoever will be caused to the petitioners or anybody else enlisted in Annexure A1, as all others but for the respondent herein, whose name have been mentioned in Annexure A1, have already obtained appointment.
O.P.(KAT) No. 72 of 2016
: 7 :
by the Tribunal, which in fact has been passed in conformity with the relevant Rules.
Interference is declined and the O.P stands dismissed
sd/-
P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE
sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN,
JUDGE
kmd
/True copy/
P.A. To Judge
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the respondent is entitled to regularization benefits similar to those granted to other similarly situated persons in a previous Tribunal verdict.
Inspector General of Police
Commandant, Kerala Armed Police 1st Battalion
Jayan T.K.
P. R. Ramachandra Menon
Anil K. Narendran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
