IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
S.V. BHATTI, BASANT BALAJI, JJ.
VIDYA GOPAN D/O K. GOPAKUMAR – Appellant
Versus
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM – Respondent
W.A. No. 314 of 2021, W.P. (C) No. 32617 of 2019
Decided On : 22-08-2022
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 14, 16, 229 – Rajasthan High Court Staff Service Rules 2002 - Appeal – Equality before law -– Writ petition was filed by appellants for reliefs – Whether they are working in District Court or in High Court and consequently Court Managers working in different High Courts were also regularized as a onetime measure – Held, On going through tabular column incorporated in argument note submitted by counsel for appellants, Court do not find any reason to take a different stand as submitted by counsel for appellants – Apex Court did not give any distinction between Court Managers of High Court as well as that of District Court – But going through judgment of learned single Judge as well as judgment of Apex Court together with various orders passed by different High Courts, Court are of the considered opinion that there are grounds to interfere with judgment of learned single Judge and we do so – Judgment of learned single Judge is therefore set aside – Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
BASANT BALAJI, J.
1. The appellants are the petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 32617 of 2019. The learned single Judge, by the impugned judgment, dismissed the writ petition.
2. The writ petition was filed by the appellants for the following reliefs:
(ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing Respondents 1 and 3 to implement Ext. P12 order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by regularizing the petitioners herein in service.
(iii) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records leading up to Ext. P19 and quashing the same.
(iv) grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper to grant in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interests of justice.”
3. The appellants were selected and appointed as Court Managers in this court on a temporary basis pursuant to notification dated 17.02.2014. The post of Court Managers in the High Court and District Courts were created pursuant to the recommendations of the 13th Finance Commission. Ext.P5 notification was issued on 17.02.2014 inviting applications from qualified Indian citizens for temporary appointment to the post of Court Managers in the High Court of Kerala, pursuant to which, the appellants applied for the post, and Ext.P6 rank list was brought into force exclusively for the High Court of Kerala. The 1st appellant was ranked No. 1 and the 2nd appellant was ranked No. 5. They were appointed on a temporary basis and later the tenure was extended from time to time for a successive one year each. By proceedings dated 25.2.2021, the appellants were terminated with effect from 26.2.2021. On the very same day, another official memorandum was also issued seeking willingness of the appellants for considering them for reengagement as Court Managers on contract basis for a further period of one year with effect from 1.3.2021. On the basis of the willingness, an order was passed by the Registrar (General) appointing the appellants as Court Managers on contract basis with effect from 12.3.2021 and they executed agreement Annexure A11 and A12.
4. On 31.03.2017, the 2nd respondent issued Ext.P11 order, according sanction for the creation of two posts of Court Managers in the High Court in the pay scale of Rs. 42,500-87,000/- and granted an extension to the two temporary posts for the period from 01.04.2017 till the permanent posts of Court Managers is created and filled in accordance with the Rules. While so, I.A. No. 279 of 2010 filed in W.P. (C) No. 1022 of 1989 before the Apex Court came up for consideration and the Apex Court passed Ext.P12 order.
Direction No. (ix) in the order reads as follows:
Merely because the notifications of the District Judiciary for Court Managers of District Courts as well as this Court were different, it cannot be said that the selection to the District Court was d....
Amelioration of service conditions of Court Managers – Appointment of Court Managers in district judicial system would enable District Judges to devote more time to their judicial functions – All Hi....
Contract employees appointed through a transparent selection process are entitled to regularization, aligning with principles of equality and fair treatment in public employment.
Appointees for a limited purpose and on contract basis are not entitled to regularization.
Irregular appointments made by competent authorities can be regularized if employees have served for over ten years, emphasizing the need for pragmatic interpretation of rules.
The court ruled that employees employed for lengthy periods cannot be denied regularization of service, emphasizing principles of fairness and equality under the Constitution.
Regularization of temporary staff in judiciary is prohibited if appointments are deemed illegal under relevant legislation, emphasizing the necessity of proper recruitment procedures.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.