Back
2017 Supreme(Ker) 918
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, V. SHIRCY, JJ.
E.K. Anilkumar Ernakulam District & Another – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala, Represented by Secretary to Government, Department of Scheduled Caste Development & Others – Respondents
OP(KAT). Nos. 125 to 128, 134, 137 to 139, 141, 146, 147, 150, 153, 154, 156, 160 to 162, 164, 166, 167, 169 to 171, 173, 175 to 179, 183 to 185, 190 to 193, 195 to 202, 207 to 209, 213, 216 & 229 of 2017
Decided on : 31-08-2017
For the Petitioners:S. Sanal Kumar, Bhavana Velayudhan, T.J. Seema, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Paul Abraham Vakkanal, Government Pleader.
The court established that the petitioners could not be regularised under any circumstance and that the stipulation contained in Annexure A17 that persons continuing for more than 8 years would not be considered, was arbitrary, having no nexus with the object and in violation of principle as to the equal opportunity.
Headnote:
Interference declined by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal in the O.As. filed by the petitioners seeking for a direction not to dispense with their service on expiry of the terms of the contract, by replacing another set of temporary hands (SC Promoters/Social Activists) initially engaged for a period of one year and were permitted to continue on renewal for different spells and for regularisation in service, is under challenge in these Original Petitions. The nature of pleadings and proceedings is almost similar and so also are the grounds raised, as the basis for challenge. Heavy reliance is sought to be placed on the verdict passed by the Apex Court in State of Haryana and others vs. Piara Singh and others ([(1992) 4 SCC 118 = AIR 1992 SC 2130] and also paragraph 53 of the verdict passed by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in State of Karanataka vs. Umadevi [(2006) 4 SCC 1], besides some other judgments as well.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought a direction not to dispense with their service on expiry of the terms of the contract, by replacing another set of temporary hands initially engaged for a period of one year and were permitted to continue on renewal for different spells and for regularisation in service. The Tribunal rejected the prayers, except for intercepting with one of the conditions in the notifications issued for fresh selection, to the extent it stipulated that persons who were continuing in service beyond 'eight years' will not be considered under any circumstance.
Finding of the Court:
The Tribunal answered the question of maintainability of the O.A. in favour of the petitioners/applicants and against the respondents. However, in respect of the contentions put forth based on the dictum in State of Haryana and others vs. Piara Singh and others [(1992) 4 SCC 118 = AIR 1992 SC 2130] that, one set of temporary employees cannot be replaced by another set of temporary hands and also as to the scope of the verdict passed by the Supreme Court in Umadevi's case, the position was answered against the petitioners/applicants holding that it was not correct or sustainable and that they could not be regularised under any circumstance. The Tribunal, however held, as per Ext.P1 common verdict, that the stipulation contained in Annexure A17 that persons continuing for more than 8 years would not be considered, was arbitrary, having no nexus with the object and in violation of principle as to the equal opportunity.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioners, having engaged after a due process of selection and were continuing in service for quite long, cannot be sent out, to be replaced by another set of temporary hands and can be replaced only by appointing regular hands, in view of the law declared by the Apex Court in State of Haryana and others vs. Piara Singh and others. Another issue was whether the petitioners are entitled to be considered for regularisation, which benefit shall not be denied under any circumstance.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioners could not be regularised under any circumstance and that the stipulation contained in Annexure A17 that persons continuing for more than 8 years would not be considered, was arbitrary, having no nexus with the object and in violation of principle as to the equal opportunity.
Final Decision: The Original Petitions were dismissed.
P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.
1. Interference declined by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal in the O.As. filed by the petitioners seeking for a direction not to dispense with their service on expiry of the terms of the contract, by replacing another set of temporary hands (SC Promoters/Social Activists) initially engaged for a period of one year and were permitted to continue on renewal for different spells and for regularisation in service, is under challenge in these Original Petitions. The nature of pleadings and proceedings is almost similar and so also are the grounds raised, as the basis for challenge. Heavy reliance is sought to be placed on the verdict passed by the Apex Court in State of Haryana and others vs. Piara Singh and others ([(1992) 4 SCC 118 = AIR 1992 SC 2130] and also paragraph 53 of the verdict passed by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in State of Karanataka vs. Umadevi [(2006) 4 SCC 1], besides some other judgments as well.
2. The O.As filed before the Tribunal were considered together and the prayers were rejected, however intercepting with one of the conditions in the notifications issued for fresh selection, to the extent it stipulated that persons who were continuing in service beyond 'eight years' will not be considered under any circumstance. The Tribunal held that it was in violation of the constitutional mandate of Article 16(1) in relation to the equal opportunity of employment and that the respondents were bound to consider them as well, if they satisfied the requirements in relation to the qualification and age factor.
3. O.A. No.881 of 2015 was taken as the lead case by the Tribunal and as such, the Original Petition arising therefrom, i.e. O.P.(KAT)192 of 2017, is treated as the lead case before this Court. The parties and proceedings are referred to as given therein, except where it is separately adverted to, with reference to the facts and figures and the context involved.
4. Heard Mr. Kaleeswaram Raj, the learned counsel for the petitioners in the lead case i.e. O.P.(KAT)Nos.192 of 2017 and connected cases; Mr.S.Sanal Kumar, the learned counsel who appeared for the petitioners in O.P.(KAT)Nos.125 of 2017 and connected cases, Mr. P. Nandakumar, the learned counsel for the petitioners in O.P(KAT)Nos.126 of 2017 and connected cases and the learned lawyers for others as well; besides the learned Govt. Pleader appearing for the State.
5. It came to the notice of the Government that various welfare measures evolved by the Government for the upliftment of the Scheduled Castes were not actually reaching the intended target groups among the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, when the Government felt the need to educate individuals from among the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe communities to ensure the participation of the target group as well, to provide transparency in the implementation of the various projects. Based on the Scheme suggested by the Planning Board, the Government started appointing 'SCP Co-ordinators' and 'Social Activists' from the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe Communities, as evident from Annexure A1 Government Order dated 16.03.2001, which has consolidated the guidelines issued as per various Government orders issued during the period 1998-2000 in this regard. It was accordingly, that the petitioners also came to be selected and engaged along with other similar persons, after giving training on the job requirement for a few days. The persons engaged as SCP Coordinators and Social Activists in the Panchayats, Municipalities and Corporations were stated as eligible to draw an honorarium of Rs.2000/- and they were to be within the age group of 18-35 years. It was specifically stipulated that the engagement would be purely temporary and that they would not be eligible for regularisation in future, besides pointing out that the expenditure for payment of honorarium was to be met from the amount set apart for the House Construction Scheme.
6. As per Annexure A3
