The petitioner sought regularization in a government project research institute, claiming similarity with other regularized staff. The High Court opined that project staff appointed for funded sources are not entitled to regularization upon project expiry, dismissing the writ petition.
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 K.VINOD CHANDRAN
MONDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/21ST POUSHA, 1937
WP(C).No. 28060 of 2005 (M)
PETITIONER:
R.RAJESH, LALITHALAYAM, EX.COLONY.P.O., PACHA PALODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADVS.SRI.K.R.B.KAIMAL (SR.) SRI.B.UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL
RESPONDENTS:
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT. OF KERALA, SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT (A) DEPT., SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2. THE KERALA STATE COUNCIL FOR SCIENC TECHNOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY SASTHRA BHAVAN, PATTOM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
3. THE TROPICAL BOTANIC GARDEN AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE PALODE, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADVS. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN SC FOR (TBGARI)
SRI.P.A.AHAMED, SC, K.S.C.T.E SRI.GEORGE ZACHARIAH,SC,KSCSTE SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. SUNITHA VINOD
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 28060 of 2005 (M)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :-
| EXT.P1 | - | COPY OF THE ORDER NO.BG.3/96 DATED 03.10.1996 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. |
|---|---|---|
| EXT.P2 | - | COPY OF THE ORDER NO.BG.3/99 DATED 06.09.1999 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. |
| EXT.P3 | - | COPY OF THE ORDER NO.BG.3/2000-01 DATED 15.05.2000 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. |
| EXT.P4 | - | COPY OF THE ORDER NO.BG.3/2002 DATED 14.05.2002 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. |
| EXT.P5 | - | COPY OF THE ORDER NO.TBGRI/DR/90/2001 DATED 17.03.2001 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. |
| EXT.P6 | - | COPY OF THE COUNCIL (M) ORDER NO.86/05/KSCSTE DATED 04.12.2004 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. |
| EXT.P7 | - | COPY OF THE ORDER NO.GO(MS) NO.03/04/STED DATED 23.12.2004 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. |
| EXT.P8 | - | COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 27.12.2004 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. |
| EXT.P9 | - | COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 10.01.2005 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2. |
| EXT.P10 | - | COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT IN WP(C) NO.5428/ 2005 DATED 16.02.2005. |
| EXT.P11 | - | COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 27.07.2005 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DY.SECRETARY, STED, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. |
| EXT.P12 | - | COPY OF THE ORDER G.O.(RT) NO.29/2005/STED DATED 12.08.2005 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. |
| EXT.P13 | - | COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A1/207/06 DATED 14.08.2006 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT (PRODUCED IN I.A. NO.15619/06 IN WP(C) NO.28060/05). |
| EXT.P14 | - | COPY OF THE LETTER NO.TBGRI/ESTT1/7031/06 DATED 30.10.2006 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT (PRODUCED IN I.A. NO.1561/06 IN WP(C) NO.28060/05). |
| EXT.P15 | - | COPY OF THE ORDER NO.03/2007/KSCSTE DATED 04.01.2007 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. |
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:- NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
sp
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
W.P(C). No.28060 of 2005-M
Dated this the 11th day of January, 2016
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is aggrieved with the fact that he was not regularised, despite similarly placed persons having been regularised. The petitioner admittedly was employed in a project on a temporary basis. The petitioner claimed that he is similar to those persons regularised as per Exts.P6&P7. The petitioner was earlier before this Court and this Court, by Ext.P10, directed consideration of his claim.
W.P(C). No.28060 of 2005-M
2
would stand authentically terminated, is the contention.
The writ petition would stand dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE. //True Copy//
P.A. to Judge.
sp/13/01/16
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to regularization despite being appointed for a funded project that has concluded.
Whether the petitioner is similar to persons regularized in the respondent institution.
Whether the impugned order rejecting the promoter's regularization claim warrants judicial interference.
R.Rajesh
State of Kerala
Kerala State Council for Science Technology and Environment
Tropical Botanic Garden and Research Institute
K.Vinod Chandran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
