Dismissed

P.R.Padmakumari v. the Managing Director, Kerala Water Authority

Kerala HC15 Mar 2016WA/486/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ appeal challenges a judgment dismissing a petition for service regularisation. The Court held that an employee appointed for a temporary period via employment exchange cannot claim regularisation unless a specific scheme provides for it, dismissing the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal filed against the rejection of the claim for regularisation was dismissed.

P.R.Padmakumari Vs the Managing Director, Kerala Water… — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ASHOK BHUSHAN

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH 2016/25TH PHALGUNA, 1937

¶7

WA.No. 486 of 2016 IN WP(C).29562/2011

¶8

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 29562/2011 DATED 19-01-2016

¶9

APPELLANT/PETITIONER :

¶10

P.R.PADMAKUMARI,

¶11

PATTANATHUKATTIL HOUSE, KOOTTUKAD, VADAKKUMPURAM(P.O.) CHENNAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶12

BY ADVS.SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J.

¶13

SRI.T.G.SUNIL (PRANAVAM)

¶14

SRI.K.R.GANESH

¶15

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS :

¶16

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, JALABHAVAN THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033.

¶17

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERAL WATER AUTHORITY OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.H.DIVISION ALUVA-683001.

¶18

THE DISTRICT EMPLOYMENT OFFICER, DISTRICT EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE, ERNAKULAM COCHIN-682033.

¶19

R1 & R2 BY SRI.GEORGE MATHEW, SC, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY R3 BY SPL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SMT. GIRIJA GOPAL

¶20

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15-03-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

WA.No. 486 of 2016 IN WP(C).29562/2011

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

APPELLANT'S EXHIBITS :

¶24

ANNEXURE A1 : TRUE COPY OF G.O. DATED 25.11.2005.

¶25

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

PA TO JUDGE

ASHOK BHUSHAN, C.J. & A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.

¶30

¶31

W.A. No. 486 OF 2016

¶32

- - - - Dated this the 15^th day of March, 2016

¶33

JUDGMENT

¶34

Shaffique, J.

¶35

This appeal is filed against the judgment dated 19.01.2016 in W.P.(C) No. 29562 of 2011 by which the learned Single Judge has rejected the claim of the petitioner seeking for regularisation. The writ petition was filed by the appellant seeking for quashing Ext.P10 order dated 02.11.2011 issued by the 2^nd respondent, the Executive Engineer, Kerala Water Authority and for a direction to the 2^nd respondent to allow the petitioner to continue in service as Part Time Sweeper as long as the post is in existence.

¶36

The short facts described in the writ petition would disclose that the petitioner claims to have been sponsored by the Employment Exchange and the interview committee found that the petitioner is the most eligible candidate among others and was selected for appointment for a period of 179 days in the office of Executive Engineer, P.H. Division, Aluva. Ext.P1 is her appointment order dated

¶37

W.A. No. 486 of 2016

¶38

-:2:-

¶39

08.02.2011 by which she was appointed as 'Part Time Sweeper for a period of 179 days'. It is stated that she joined duty on 14.02.2011 and since then she has been working as Part Time Sweeper. When the respondents initiated steps for termination of her service on completion of 179 days, she submitted a representation seeking regularisation of her service by submitting Ext.P2. The same was forwarded to the 1^st respondent, Managing Director of Kerala Water Authority and she was permitted to continue beyond 179 days. However, no orders were passed with regard to her claim for regularisation and ultimately by Ext.P10 dated 02.11.2011 a decision was taken to terminate her service with effect from the said date. The petitioner submits that since she was appointed through Employment Exchange after following the selection process, she has every right to continue in service.

¶40

The learned Single Judge after elaborately considering the factual and legal aspects involved in the matter formed an opinion that in so far as the appointment is made only on a temporary post and that too for a period of 179 days and

¶41

W.A. No. 486 of 2016

¶42

-:3:-

¶43

since a regular appointment is attempted to be made to the permanent post in which the petitioner cannot be appointed, dismissed the writ petition.

¶44

While impugning the aforesaid judgment, learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on Annexure A1 Government Order dated 25.11.2005 by which the Government has framed a scheme for regularising the Part Time Sweepers engaged in cleaning of Government Offices. Reference is made to paragraph 8 of the said order which indicates that for regularisation of existing casual sweepers where the sweeping area exceeds 100 sq.mtrs., the creation of posts of Part Time contingent employees depending on the sweeping area has to be made.

¶45

It is argued that this Government Order has been approved by this Court in a Division Bench judgment reported in Sub Inspector of Police, Kuthiyathode and others v. S.Girija [2010 (2) KLT 428]. Learned counsel for the appellant has also placed reliance on a Full Bench judgment of this Court in

¶46

W.A. No. 486 of 2016

¶47

-:4:-

¶48

Kerala Water Authority and another v. D.Surendran and

¶49

another [2006(4) KLT 983] to contend that there are several instances where Part Time Contingent employees were regularised on the basis of the directions issued by this Court.

¶50

The main contention urged by the appellant is with regard to the right to get regularisation in the services of Kerala Water Authority. Apparently the appellant had been appointed through Employment Exchange by notifying that she is appointed as Part Time Sweeper for a period of 179 days. Ext.P1 appointment order would clearly indicate that the appointment is purely for 179 days. Under such circumstances such employee cannot claim regularisation in service unless such claims are also included in any scheme formed by the Government. Annexure A1 Government Order produced by the appellant does deal with appointments made subsequent to that order as it deals only with regularisation of appointments of “existing casual sweepers”, wherein necessary modalities have been made for granting regularisation of Part Time Contingent Sweepers as well. Under

¶51

W.A. No. 486 of 2016

¶52

-:5:-

¶53

such circumstances Annexure A1 Government Order will not help the appellant.

¶54

In Girija 's case (supra) this Court has considered the case of regularisation made in terms of Annexure A1. As far as the judgment in D.Surendran (supra) is concerned, the same was considered in the light of claim made by physically challenged person and appellant has no such case.

¶55

That apart, in the judgment reported in Secretary, State of Karnataka & others v. Umadevi (3) and others [(2006) 4 SCC 1], it may not be possible to regularise an employee appointed on temporary basis and that too without following the established procedure of making appointment in a regular sanctioned post.

¶56

Under such circumstances, when application has been invited by Employment Exchange for appointment to a temporary post for 179 days, that selection by itself will not give any right to claim regularisation. We do not think that the learned Single Judge has committed any error in dismissing the writ petition.

¶57

W.A. No. 486 of 2016

¶58

-:6:-

¶59

We do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed.

¶60

Sd/- Ashok Bhushan, Chief Justice.

¶61

Sd/-

¶62

A.M. Shaffique, Judge.