Back
2025 Supreme(Ker) 682
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
N. NAGARESH, J.
T.N. Jayasankar - Petitioner
Versus
State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary to Government Department of Tourism & Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) No. 4651 of 2023
Decided On : 08-04-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : BY ADVS. SURIN GEORGE IPE SREEDEV U
For the Respondent: BY SMT. ANIMA M, GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. SHYAM PADMAN, SC
IMPORTANT POINT
Continuous service for over ten years in sanctioned posts, even if irregular, can warrant regularisation under specific conditions, as established in Amarkand Rai v. State of Bihar.
Headnote:
(A) Kerala Institute of Tourism and Travel Studies Act - Regularisation of service - The petitioner, a qualified Lecturer, sought regularisation after 15 years of service, which was denied citing the Supreme Court's judgment in Umadevi - The court found that the petitioner met the criteria for regularisation as per Amarkand Rai v. State of Bihar. (Paras 10 , 21 , 25 , 27 )
(B) Employment Law - The court emphasized that continuous service for over ten years in sanctioned posts, even if irregular, can warrant regularisation. (Paras 24 , 26 )
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in KITTS and later sought regularisation after years of service, which was denied despite recommendations from the institution.
Findings of Court:
The court determined that the petitioner was entitled to regularisation based on his qualifications and years of service, setting aside the government's denial.
Issues: The main issues were whether the petitioner,s service could be regularised despite the Umadevi judgment and the justification for the government's denial.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioner met the criteria for regularisation as he had served continuously for over ten years in a sanctioned post, and the government's reasoning was insufficient.
Result: The petition is allowed, and the respondents are directed to regularise the petitioner,s service.
JUDGMENT :
The petitioner is a Post Graduate in Master of Tourism Administration. The petitioner holds a Certificate in Airline Management and a Post Graduate Diploma in Tourism and Travels Studies. The petitioner was appointed as Special Officer for conducting a study for restructuring of District Tourism Promotion Councils (DTPC) in the State. During this period, the petitioner was reporting to the 2nd respondent-Kerala Institute of Tourism and Travel Studies (KITTS).
2. The petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in KITTS, Ernakulam Chapter with effect from 01.08.2002. The 2nd respondent-KITTS established Kerala Institute of Hospitality Management Studies (KIHMS) at Malayattoor. The KITTS appointed the petitioner as Lecturer in KIHMS as per Ext.P2 appointment order dated 30.06.2006.
3. The petitioner states that he was appointed as Project Assistant in KITTS in March, 2002 and worked till July, 2002. He worked as Guest Lecturer in KIHMS from 01.02.2002 till 15.05.2005 and from 17.10.2005 till 26.01.2006. The petitioner states that proposal regarding regularisation of the petitioner was taken up by the 32nd Executive Committee meeting of the KITTS held on 11.06.2009. In the meanwhile, KIHMS was renamed as KITTS Study Centre on 10.06.2009.
4. The KITTS permitted the petitioner to go on deputation as Secretary of DTPC as per Ext.P5 letter dated 10.08.2011. The petitioner took charge as Secretary, DTPC, Ernakulam on 16.08.2011. The Executive Committee meeting of KITTS held on 11.04.2012 decided to regularise the services of their staff. The 2nd respondent issued Ext.P11 letter dated 20.03.2015 to the Secretary to Government seeking to regularise the petitioner in service. The regularisation of services of the petitioner was approved by the Government on 05.03.2016 and the proposal was sent to the Finance Department for approval as per Ext.P15. To the surprise of the petitioner, the Government retracted from their earlier stand as per Ext.P16 and decided not to regularise the services of the petitioner.
5. The petitioner states that one Sri. Sajith Kumar, who was working as Peon, was regularised in service with retrospective effect as per Ext.P19. The Government also concurred the retrospective regularisation of Smt. Sindhu S., who was appointed as Lecturer on contract basis, as per Ext.P20. The petitioner alone has been subjected to hostile discrimination in the matter of regularisation of service.
6. The petitioner filed W.P.(C)No.21336/2019 seeking to regularise his service. This Court, as per Ext.P21 judgment dated 21.06.2022, set aside Ext.P16 and directed the Government to take a final decision on the request of the petitioner for regularisation. The Government, however, again declined the request as per Ext.P22 order dated 29.12.2022. The petitioner therefore challenges Ext.P22 order and seeks to direct the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner and to grant him all service and monetary benefits including pay revision with retrospective effect from the date of joining.
7. The 1st respondent resisted the writ petition filing counter affidavit. The 1st respondent submitted that as per letter dated 19.03.2002, KITTS had assigned the petitioner as Special Officer for assisting Dr. C.V. Anand Bose for conducting study on the functioning of DTPCs and to redefine its role. As per Ext.R1(a) order dated 25.07.2002, the petitioner was again engaged as Lecturer on contract basis in KITTS. Later, an advertisement was published as per Ext.R1(b) dated 15.02.2006 for selection to the post of Lecturer (Travel and Tourism).
8. The petitioner was selected and appointed as Lecturer on contract basis in the scale of pay of Rs. 6675-10550. The contract appointment was only for a period of three years. After the expiry of the contract period, the question of regularisation of the petitioner was taken up and the proposal was rejected by the Executive Committee meeting held on 11.06.2009 as per Ext.R1(d).
9. The 1st respondent submitted
