The Kerala High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a 179-day temporary appointment as a Watchman cum Sweeper. The Court rejected the challenge due to excessive delay and the lack of a selection process, holding the appointment was valid under Rule 9(A)(1).
Writ petition dismissed; no order as to costs.
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 EASWARAN S.
FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 3RD JYAISHTA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 34070 OF 2018
PETITIONER:
1 RAMACHANDRAN C.K.
AGED 54 YEARS
S/O. PAITHAL NAIR K.K, KUNDATHIL HOUSE, NEERAVELI, KANNUR 670701
BY ADVS. P.NANDAKUMAR S.ANEESH
SILPA
RESPONDENTS:
BY ADVS. SRI. K.M. FAISAL, GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. R. RANJANIE, SC, MALABAR DEVASOM BOARD SMT.P.K.RADHIKA
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.34070 of 2018
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 24th day of May, 2024
The writ petition is filed by the petitioner who
was appointed in the post of Watchman cum Sweeper under the Office of the Assistant Commissioner, Thalassery, under the Malabar Devaswom Board on 05.09.2013. Ext.P2 order of appointment reveals that the petitioner was appointed on a temporary basis under Rule 9(A)(1) of the Kerala State and Sub-ordinate Services Rules, for a period of 179 days. Admittedly, the period of appointment was thus purely on temporary basis. The petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P2 and to quash the same to the extent it stipulates the period of appointment of the petitioner as Watchman cum Sweeper under the respondent is only for a period of 179 days.
W.P.(C) No.34070 of 2018
3
counter affidavit, wherein it is said that the post of Watchman cum Sweeper had been only filled up from the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange. The Malabar Devaswom Board was constituted on abolishing of the erstwhile HR&CE (Admn.) Department, as per HR & CE Amendment Act, 2008. Therefore, it is the specific case of respondents 1 and 2 that the petitioner cannot claim any relief.
“It is submitted that since the HR & CE department was abolished, it is impossible to fill the vacancies as contemplated in GO(RT) No.222/2010/RD dated 8.6.2010. There is no sanctioned post in Malabar Devaswom Board. No rules has been approved by the Government for the recruitment of employees in Malabar Devaswom Board.
W.P.(C) No.34070 of 2018
4
Hence the Board has been functioning exclusively on the service of the strength of erstwhile HR & CE (Admn.) Department. The existing vacancies are being filled on deputation basis and few persons were also engaged either on contract basis through CSTED or through employment exchange.”
W.P.(C) No.34070 of 2018
5
the ground of delay. Ext.P2 order of appointment is dated 05.09.2013, whereas the present writ petition is filed only 16.10.2018. There is no averment/explanation in the writ petition as to the delay caused in challenging the Clause under Ext.P2 to the extent it holds that the appointment is purely provisional and limited to 179 days. Therefore, this Court is not persuaded to entertain the challenge to Ext.P2.
W.P.(C) No.34070 of 2018
6
9(A)(1) of Kerala State and Sub-ordinate Services
Rules. The petitioner accepted the said appointment with open eyes and cannot turn round and contend that his case should have been treated differently and he was entitled for regularisation.
In view of the above, this Court finds that there is no illegality or impropriety in limiting the claim of the appointment of 179 days, which was clearly within the domain of the employer. The claim for regularisation thus cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
EASWARAN S.
JUDGE
NB/24-5
W.P.(C) No.34070 of 2018
7
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 34070/2018
PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF DISABILITY CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT MEDICAL BOARD. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 05.9.2013 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPOND NET. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 13.3.2014 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 18.3.2014 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WA.NO,491 OF 2000 DATED 26.2.2003. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WP(C)NO.34629 OF 2004 DATED 14.7.2006. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WP(C)NO,1015 OF 2005 DATED 09.9.2005
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS: NIL
TRUE COPY
P.A. TO JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to challenge the stipulation in his appointment order limiting his tenure to 179 days.
Whether the petitioner can claim regularisation of his temporary appointment despite lack of selection process and delayed filing.
Ramachandran C.K.
Malabar Devaswom Board
Assistant Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board
State of Kerala
Easwaran S.
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
