Balakrishnan Nair, J.

The point that arises for decision in this case is whether an Employment Exchange hand appointed for 179 days to the post of Cook, which is a post borne on the Kerala Last Grade Service, can claim that her appointment should be treated as regular, on the ground that one of the methods of appointment specified in the Special Rules for the said post is recruitment through Employment Exchange.

2. The brief facts of the case are the following. The appellant was a candidate waiting in the queue for employment, after having registered herself with the District Employment Exchange, Kottayam. She submits, after waiting for 25 years, she was sponsored by the Employment Exchange along with a few others for appointment to the post of Cook in the Old Age Home, Ithithanam, Kottayam. The candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange were interviewed and the appellant was selected and appointed by the 1st respondent, who is the Superintendent of the Old Age Home, by Ext.P1 order dated 6.2005, on provisional basis for a period of 179 days, in the post of Cook. Her appointment was approved by the 2nd respondent, who is the Head of the Department, by Ext.P2 communication dated 28.2005. Apprehending that she may be terminated on completion of 179 days, the writ petition was filed on 211.2005, seeking a declaration that her appointment to the post of Cook as per Ext.P1 is a regular appointment. She also prayed for quashing Ext.P1 to the extent it states that her appointment is provisional and is for a period of 179 days. Consequential reliefs were also sought.

3. The appellant to support her case, mainly, relied on Ext.P3 judgment of the Division Bench of this Court. It was a common judgment, disposing of a few Writ Appeals and Writ Petitions, filed by Hospital Attendants Grade II, appointed through Employment Exchange. They claimed that they should be treated as candidates regularly appointed, though their appointment orders stated that their appointments were provisional and only for 179 days. Their claim was upheld by this Court. The appellant also relied on Ext.P4 judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court rendered in the case of a Part-time Sweeper, wherein it was held that though the appointment of the petitioner therein was for a period of 179 days, still she should be treated as a person regularly appointed. In the light of the above two decisions, the appellant sought the reliefs.

4. The 1st respondent filed a detailed counter affidavit, resisting the prayers in the writ petition. The said respondent contended that the appellant’s appointment was made purely on temporary basis for 179 days under Rule 9(a)(i) of K.S. & S.S.R. It was not a regular appointment. In the counter affidavit, it is specifically pleaded as follows:

“3. The petitioner had stated that she was (sic – respondents) resorted to direct appointment from Employment Exchange as there was no part-time cook in the District. The first respondent had issued the appointment order for 179 days for the post of cook by Exhibit P1 as per the General Rule 9(a)(i) of K.S. & S.S.R. and not for the post of part-time cook. Moreover, both the 1st respondent and the 2nd respondent have clearly stated in the appointment order that the appointment was purely on temporary basis and the petitioner would be ousted on completion of 179 days of service. Therefore, the appointing authority is competent to decide whether the appointment had to be on permanent basis or on temporary basis in accordance with exigency of the post. In the case of permanent posting the appointing authority will be the Head of the Department whereas temporary appointment is made by the Head of Office with ratification by the Head of the Department. In this case the appointment was made purely on temporary basis. Therefore, the petitioner was terminated from service on completion of 179 days.

4. The post of Hospital Attendant Grade II is only applicable to Health Service Department