The regularisation of the petitioners as per Ext.P2 was politically motivated and issued in undue haste to escape the model code of conduct. The court held that the petitioners were not entitled to any relief as the regularisation was not proper and the cancellation of Ext.P2 did not violate any right of the petitioners.

K. Surendra Mohan, J.

1. The petitioners herein have filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P5 proceedings of the first respondent by which their appointments have been cancelled. The petitioners are employees of the second respondent, the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Workers Welfare Fund Board. As per Ext.P2 the petitioners were regularised in the service of the second respondent. However, by Ext.P5 the said order has been cancelled.

2. According to the petitioners, the second respondent Board was formed in the year 2007. The work of the second respondent is carried on mainly utilising methods of Information Technology in the matter of registration of members, payment of contribution and disbursement of benefits. The second respondent Board is fully computerised. Therefore, upon formation in the year 2007, employees were recruited, giving preference to specialised knowledge in Information Technology. According to them, they were appointed after following a due process of selection, after considering and taking into account the qualifications and experience required for each post. However, their remuneration was fixed on daily wage basis since sanction had not been obtained for creation of the posts. Subsequently, sanction was obtained and it was decided to absorb the petitioners into the posts that were sanctioned. Thus, on 16.2.2011 the second respondent resolved to regularise the petitioners. Thereafter, based on the resolution of the Board, a request was made on 17.2.2011 to the first respondent for regularising the services of the petitioners. The said request, Ext.P1 contains a list of the persons working in the various posts, the dates of commencement of their service as well as their educational qualifications. Ext.P1 was considered by the Government and G.O. (MS) No. 42/2011 dated 1.3.2011 was issued regularising the services of 26 employees including the petitioners. The said Government Order is Ext.P2. Thereafter, consequential orders were issued by the second respondent regularising the services of the petitioners in the scales of pay sanctioned to each post by the Government. Exts.P3 and P4 are such consequential orders. On the strength of Exts.P2 to P4 the petitioners have been working as regular employees of the second respondent.

3. While so, the general elections resulted in a change of Government in the State, during May 2011. Thereafter, as per an order dated 27.7.2011, the Chief Executive Officer who had issued Exts.P3 and P4 orders was terminated from service and another person was appointed in his place, on deputation. In the above circumstances, Ext.P5 order has also been issued on 11.11.2011 cancelling Ext.P2 order of regularisation of the services of the petitioners. According to the petitioners, Ext.P5 order relates to ratification of the termination of services of the former Chief Executive Officer of the Board and under cover of the said proceedings, Ext.P2 has also been cancelled. The petitioners also contend that Ext.P5 has been issued without issuing any notice to or hearing the petitioners and therefore the said order is unsustainable and liable to be set aside. Petitioners further contend that Ext.P5 has been issued on political considerations and is therefore liable to be set aside. Therefore, they seek the issue of appropriate directions quashing Ext.P5.

4. This writ petition was admitted on 25.11.2011 and an interim order of stay of Ext.P5 was granted by this Court. However, along with the counter affidavit of the second respondent, Ext.R2(a) order dated 24.11.2011 was produced. As per the said order, the services of the petitioners had been terminated. Therefore, the writ petition has been amended by the petitioners and the said order produced as Ext.P7 in the writ petition is also under challenge. Additional grounds attacking Ext.P7 order have also been incorporated in the writ petition by amendment.

5. In the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, it is con