Back
2002 Supreme(SC) 2115
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.B. Pattanaik, Ruma Pal, JJ.
Reji Kumar & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Director of Health Services, Kerala & ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 4334 of 2000 with Nos. 776, 888 of 2001, 5934, 5931, 5930, 5929 of 2002, 5935 of 2002, 5936 of 2002, 5925 of 2002 and 5926-28 of 2002
Decided On : 10-09-2002
For the Appellant :M T George, Ms. Karthika Sr. Advocate with N R Shonker, Ms. Lekha Sudhakaran, Advocates for M/s. TTK Deepak & Co., Ms. Malini Poduval, Ms. Lansinglu Rongmei, Advocates.
P.V. Dinesh, Rajesh, Ms. Sindhu T.P., KMK Nair, Ramesh Babu M.R., K.R. Sasiprabhu, C.K. Sasi, Romy Chacko, A. Raghunath, G. Ramakrishna Prasad, Advocates.
The nature of appointment for a fixed tenure and the application of specific provisions of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules in determining the termination of services.
Headnote:
Termination - Appointment of Junior Health Inspectors - Interpretation of Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were appointed as Junior Health Inspectors in the Health Department, State of Kerala, for a fixed tenure of one year or until the regular hands/PSC hands join the duty, whichever is earlier. They approached the High Court seeking termination of their services only in accordance with Rule 9(a)(iii) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court dismissed the writ application, stating that the assumption of the appellants that their services could be terminated only in accordance with rule 9(a)(iii) of the Rules was misconceived. The Court also noted that the appointment itself was for a fixed tenure, and there would be no relationship of master and servant after the expiry of the tenure.
Issues: Interpretation of Rule 9(a)(iii) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, and the nature of appointment for a fixed tenure.
Ratio Decidendi: The provisions of the fourth proviso to rule 9(a)(i) apply proprio vigore to any appointment in respect of the Assistants in the Health Department, and the question of following the principle of rule 9(a)(iii) does not arise. Additionally, when the appointment itself is for a fixed tenure, the appointment comes to an end after the expiry of the tenure.
Final Decision: The Court found no justification for interference with the impugned judgment of the High Court and dismissed the appeal.
ORDER :
G.B. Pattanaik, J.
Heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. The impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court dismissing the writ petition follows an earlier order of the said Division Bench in W.A. No. 2577/1998. The appellants have not even produced a copy of the said order of the Division Bench in the writ appeal and we fail to understand on what basis the impugned judgment could be assailed.
3. Be that as it may, the appellants were appointed as Junior Health Inspectors in Health Department, State of Kerala, for a fixed tenure of one year or till the regular hands/PSC hands join the duty, whichever is earlier.
4. The nature of appointment was, of course, purely temporary without conferring any right to the post. The appellants approached the High Court with a prayer that their services could be terminated only in accordance with Rule 9(a)(iii) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, hereinafter referred to as "the Rules", which indicates that in the matter of termination the seniority should be taken into account.
5. The High Court, however, has dismissed the writ application. There is an interim order from this Court when the matter was listed for admission and on the basis of the statement made by the counsel appearing for the appellants that they are continuing in service, they have been permitted to continue in service till disposal of the appeal.
6. The very assumption of the appellants that their services could be terminated only in accordance with rule 9(a)(iii) of the Rules, is wholly misconceived, inasmuch as the provisions of the fourth proviso to rule 9(a)(i) would apply proprio vigore to any appointment in respect of the Assistants in the Health Department and in that event question of following the principle of rule 9(a)(iii) would not arise at all.
7. Even otherwise, when the appointment itself is for a fixed tenure, though the nature of the tenure is of a temporary one, the appointment comes to an end after the expiry of the tenure and there would be no relationship of master and servant thereafter until the relationship is continued by a fresh letter of appointment, or by intervention of any court's order. We are told that when the appellants approached the High Court, the Court had not granted any interim order. By the time they approached the Court the term of one year had expired.
8. In any view of the matter, we see no justification for our interference with the impugned judgment of the High Court. The appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly. Civil Appeal Nos. 776, 888 of 2001 SLP(C) Nos. 1098 to 1101 of 2002, 8675/01, 12224-226/01, SLP(C) Nos. 7659 and 8633 of 2002
9. Leave granted in the special leave petitions. All these appeals also stand dismissed in terms of the aforesaid order in C.A No. 4334/2000.
Appeals dismissed.
