2021 Supreme(Ker) 999

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ALEXANDER THOMAS, K. BABU, JJ.
Rajani P.Kuttan, W/o.V.R.Sunil – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
W.P(C) Nos. 18484, 18400, 18494, 18685, 19758 of 2016, 34525 of 2019, 4157 of 2020 and W.A No. 196 of 2021
Decided on : 15-09-2021

Headnote:

The petitioners were appointed provisionally by the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB) as L.D.Clerk/Sub Group Officer Grade-II, challenged clause 11 of Ext.P3 order limiting their provisional services till 31-05-2016 AN and seek regularisation of their services. The petitioners were appointed from the list sponsored by the Employment Exchange. Their names were sponsored by the Employment Exchange. They were appointed after interview and police verification regarding their antecedents. The petitioners were given training also. When the TDB attempted to terminate the services of the petitioners on completion of 179 days, they approached this Court. No reliefs were granted to them by this Court. When they approached the Apex Court, the Guruvayoor Devaswom Board devised a scheme for regularising their services. The petitioners, who are on the same footing as that of the employees working in the Guruvayoor Devaswom Board, are to be treated similarly.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners were appointed provisionally by the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB) as L.D.Clerk/Sub Group Officer Grade-II, challenged clause 11 of Ext.P3 order limiting their provisional services till 31-05-2016 AN and seek regularisation of their services. The petitioners were appointed from the list sponsored by the Employment Exchange. Their names were sponsored by the Employment Exchange. They were appointed after interview and police verification regarding their antecedents. The petitioners were given training also. When the TDB attempted to terminate the services of the petitioners on completion of 179 days, they approached this Court. No reliefs were granted to them by this Court. When they approached the Apex Court, the Guruvayoor Devaswom Board devised a scheme for regularising their services. The petitioners, who are on the same footing as that of the employees working in the Guruvayoor Devaswom Board, are to be treated similarly.

Finding of the Court:

The petitioners have failed to establish any legal right to be enforced against the respondents for regularisation of their services.

Issues: 1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to regularisation of their services? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of the doctrine of legitimate expectation? 3. Whether the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of the scheme for regularisation?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The petitioners were appointed provisionally and never underwent a selection process as per the statutory scheme prescribed to hold a regular/permanent post in the TDB. 2. The petitioners continued in the service of the TDB beyond the period of 179 days under cover of orders of this Court during the various stages of the litigative proceedings. 3. The petitioners have not continued to work up to the cut-off period of ten years, prescribed in paragraph 53 of the judgment in Umadevi. 4. The petitioners are not entitled to the benefit of the doctrine of legitimate expectation for seeking regularisation of their services. 5. The petitioners cannot press for following any past practice of regularisation as the TDB is duty-bound to make appointments in accordance with law, and illegality committed in the past cannot be allowed to perpetrate. 6. In view of the law declared in State of Karnataka v. KGSD Kanteen Employees' Welfare Association (supra), the petitioners cannot press for a scheme for regularisation as the TDB has the constitutional obligation to make appointment only in fulfilment of the statutory procedures regarding appointment. Framing of a scheme for regularisation will be in violation of Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution.

Final Decision: The writ petitions, as well as the writ appeal, shall stand dismissed.