Dismissed

Jyotheendranath.D. v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC21 Nov 2016WP(C)/2011/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the government order denying retroactive regularisation of the petitioner's service. The court found no illegality in limiting the regularisation effect to the date of the order sanctioning the posts.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed finding no illegality in the government order limiting regularisation to the date of sanction.

Jyotheendranath.D. Vs the State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/30TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 2011 of 2014 (B)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

JYOTHEENDRANADH. D., S/O. SAVITHRIAMMA, LEKSHMI VILASAM, PAPPANAMCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, (WORKING AS LAST GRADE STAFF (PEON), DEVASWOM BOARD COLLEGE, THALAYOLAPARAMBU).

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.T.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR.

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION (D) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶11

2. THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶12

3. THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NANTHANCODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶13

4. THE PRINCIPAL, DEVASWOM BOARD COLLEGE, THALAYOLAPARAMBU, KOTTAYAM-686 001.

¶14

R1 & R2 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN. R3 BY ADV. SRI.M.V.S.NAMBOOTHIRI, SC.

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

rs.

¶17

WP(C).No. 2011 of 2014 (B)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶20

P1. A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20-07-1998 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶21

P2. A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22-11-2000 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶22

P3. A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23-12-2000 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶23

P4 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25-01-2001 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶24

P5. A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 13-04-2001 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶25

P6. A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 24-11-2003 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶26

P7. A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 24-12-2007 SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶27

P8. A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 07-05-2008 SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶28

P9. A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 13-06-2008 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶29

P10. A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 04-08-2009 IN WP(C).NO.20888/2009.

¶30

P11. A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 09-10-2009 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶31

P12. A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20-08-2010 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶32

P13. A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 30-08-2010 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶33

P14. A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 30-08-2010 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶34

P15. A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C).NO.33148/2009, PASSED BY THIS COURT.

¶35

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

rs.

ANU SIVARAMAN, J.

¶40

W.P(C).No. 2011 of 2014

¶41

Dated this the 21^st November, 2016

¶42

JUDGMENT

¶43

The challenge in this writ petition is against Exhibit P12 order of the Government, to the extent it denies retrospectivity to the regularisation of the petitioner's service as Peon. Exhibit P11 order dated 9.10.2009, which rejects the petitioner's claim for regularisation from an earlier date as also Exhibits P13 and P14 consequential orders passed by the Management, are also under challenge.

¶44

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2 as also the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 3 and 5.

¶45

The petitioner contends that he was appointed in pursuance of Exhibit P1 order of the Government according sanction to fill up existing vacancies of teaching and non teaching staff on contract basis. Pursuant to selection conducted, the petitioner was also appointed on contract basis. By Exhibit P3 order dated 23.12.2000, the Government had accorded sanction for regularisation of persons including serial numbers 1 to 9 in the

¶46

¶47

WP(C).2011/14

¶48

list of contract employees with effect from 31.12.2000. It is contended that the petitioner was rank No.10 in the said list. Serial number 7, N.Narayanan Nair had resigned after joining service in order to take up other employment and the petitioner contends that by Exhibits P5 and P6, the management had sought sanction to regularise the appointment of the petitioner in the existing vacancy. By Exhibit P9 communication, the 2^nd respondent had also addressed the Government seeking sanction for the regularisation of the petitioner. When no orders were passed by the Government, the petitioner had approached this Court and by Exhibit P10 judgment, the Government was directed to consider all the aspects of the matter and take a decision on the request made by the petitioner for regularisation in the light of Exhibit P9 communication as well.

¶49

In Exhibit P11 order dated 9.10.2011, it is stated that the number of sanctioned posts of peon in the Colleges of the 3^rd respondent was 20 against which 43 persons were reportedly in position. Therefore, the continuance of the 23 peons without sanctioned post was pointed out and the request of the petitioner for appointment in a permanent vacancy was rejected. Later by Exhibit P12 order dated 20.8.2010, the Government accorded

¶50

¶51

WP(C).2011/14

¶52

sanction to create 21 supernumerary posts in the category of last grade servants and the regularisation of persons working against the said posts. However, the date of effect of regularisation was from the date of the order. The petitioner was, therefore, appointed with effect from 30.8.2010 and his appointment was duly approved as peon.

¶53

It is contended by the learned Government Pleader that the petitioner had no claim for appointment or continuance in service without the sanction of posts of last grade servants additionally by Exhibit P12 order. In the above view of the matter, it is contended that Exhibits P5 and P6 communications of the Manager and Exhibit P9 recommendation made by the 2^nd respondent would not help the petitioner in view of the fact that the posts to which he was appointed were sanctioned only by Exhibit P12 order. Before the date of Exhibit P12 order, there is admittedly no post for accommodating the petitioner.

¶54

I have considered arguments advanced as well as the pleadings and materials on record. In the facts of the case, I find no illegality or material irregularity in the order of the Government directing the appointment of the petitioner as last grade servant in the 3^rd respondent College with effect from the

¶55

¶56

WP(C).2011/14

¶57

date of the order. The petitioner has not succeeded in disputing the findings contained in Exhibit P11 order to the effect that there were only 20 sanctioned posts against which 43 persons were working and that 23 last grade servants had been continuing against supernumerary posts. Admittedly, 21 supernumerary posts have been sanctioned only by Exhibit P12 order. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner for regular appointment against one of the said posts can only be limited to the date of sanctioning of the said posts. In the above circumstances, the limiting of the effect of the regular appointment granted to the petitioner from the date of Exhibit P12 order cannot be held to be bad in law.

¶58

The writ petition, therefore, fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.

¶59

ANU SIVARAMAN

¶60

vgs23/11

Jyotheendranath.D. v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jyotheendranath.D. v. the State of Kerala

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

P.Ibrahim Vs State of Kerala

Joseph.M.C. Vs State of Kerala

Jasmine Vs the Travancore-Cochin Chemicals Ltd.

Aboobacker P. Vs the State of Kerala

Krishnakumar P.P. Vs State of Kerala

Vijayaghosh S Vs Kerala Minerals and Metals Ltd.