The main legal point established in the judgment is that the provisions of R.9(a)(i) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules reflect a policy to prevent arbitrary actions and ensure appointments through the Employment Exchange, based on the unique conditions in the State of Kerala.

M. Jagannadha Rao , J.

1. This appeal is preferred against the Judgment of the learned Single Judge dismissing O. P. No. 9468 of 1993 on 20-7-1993. The appellant is the writ petitioner. She was appointed as a Lower Division Typist in the Office of the Municipal Commissioner, Kottayam (second respondent under R.9(a)(i) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules. She was appointed on 4-2-1993 on a temporary basis on being sponsored by the Employment Exchange, Kottayam. The order of appointment, Ext. P1 dated 4-2-1993, states that the appointment is for a period of 179 days, or till regular appointee takes charge, whichever is earlier. Regular appointment is, of course, through the Public Service Commission. While so, the appellant continued till 179 days and her services came to an end. Subsequently, the authorities, according to the appellant, are proceeding to make another temporary appointment through the Employment Exchange. Strong reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Piara Singh, 1992 (4) SCC 118, and in particular Para.46 of the said decision, which reads as follows :

"46. Secondly, an ad hoc or temporary employee should not be replaced by another ad hoc or temporary employee; he must be replaced only by a regularly selected employee. This is necessary to avoid arbitrary action on the part of the appointing authority."

Reliance is also placed on the observation of the Supreme Court in an earlier case relating to the Kerala Water Authority, namely, Jacob M, Puthuparambil v. Kerala Water Authority, 1991 (1) SCC 28.

2. A Division Beech of this Court had occasion to deal with Piara Singh's case in Reji Joseph v. K. S. E. B. 1993 (1) KLT 393. It was held that the above decision of the Supreme Court did not apply to the cases governed by the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, wherein there is a special provision to the effect that once the appointment comes to an end at the completion of 179 days, persons so appointed should not be reappointed, but fresh appointments should be made through the Employment Exchange. The above said decision in Reji Joseph's case was followed by us in W. A. No. 1338 of 1992.

3. As the matter has again been reargued, we have felt it necessary to give a further detailed Judgment. R.9 of the KS & SSR, in so far as it is material for the purpose of this case reads as follows:

"9. Temporary appointments (a) (i) Where it is necessary in the public interest, owning to an emergency which has arisen to fill immediately a vacancy in a post borne on the cadre of a service, class or category and there would be undue delay in making such appointment in accordance with these rules and the Special Rules, the appointing authority may appoint a person, otherwise than in accordance with the said rules, temporarily:

Provided .....................

Provided further that a person appointed under this clause by direct recruitment to a post other than teaching post and a post covered bythe proviso to clause (iii) to R.10(b) shall not be allowed to continue in such post for a period exceeding one hundred and eighty days.

.............................

Provided also that a person appointed under this clause by direct recruitment to a post and discharged from service after the admissible period, shall not be reappointed to the same post by the same appointing authority, except when fresh candidates are not available for appointment through Employment Exchange, and such reappointment shall be made only with the prior concurrence of the Commission.

............................"

It will be noticed from the above provision in the KS & SSR that temporary appointment is made where an emergency has arisen when regular hands are not available, where it would take considerable time to make regular appointment through the Public Service Commission or other procedures prescribed for regular appointment. In such cases, temporary appointments could be resorted to. Then, such appointme