The distinction between irregular and illegal appointments is crucial in regularization considerations, emphasizing the need for fair evaluation based on established legal principles.

JUDGMENT :

Harisankar V. Menon, J.

These writ petitions have been filed by various employees who are stated to have been appointed in the Jawaharlal Nehru Tropical Botanic Garden & Research Institute under the aegis of the Kerala State Council for Science, Technology and Environment, a society formed by the Government and under its exclusive control.

2. For ease of reference, the facts and circumstances highlighted in W.P.(C) No. 32784 of 2023 are referred to. There are three petitioners in this writ petition. They contend that they were appointed as Office Assistants in the 2^nd respondent Institute pursuant to various notifications inviting applications for walk-in interviews for appointment to the post of Office Assistant. The said notifications issued by the 2^nd respondent have been produced as Exts.P1 to P6. It may be noted that, in these notifications, the maximum age limit prescribed for applicants was 40 years as on 01.01.2013.

3. The petitioners state that, since there were more than 100 applicants, a written test was conducted, in which 20 candidates were declared qualified and subsequently called for interview, as evidenced by Exts.P7 and P8. Thereafter, pursuant to the appointment orders dated 01.04.2013 (Exts.P9 to P11), the petitioners were appointed on a “contract basis”. The said appointments were made for specific periods and were extended from time to time, as evidenced by Exts.P12 to P15.

4. The petitioners further point out that, in the year 2015, the Government, based on a recommendation from the 4^th respondent, decided to convert three posts of Typists into Office Assistants, while simultaneously abolishing the remaining three posts of Office Assistants. At that stage, in 2015, even before the completion of three years of service, the petitioners submitted Ext.P17 representation to the Government seeking regularisation of their services.

5. Pursuant to directions issued by the Government, the Director of the 2^nd respondent issued Ext.P18 recommendation proposing the regularisation of the petitioners. Based on this, the Member Secretary of the 4^th respondent also addressed the Director of the 2^nd respondent, informing that, the President of the Society has directed to take appropriate action.

6. It is pertinent to note that Ext.P19 was issued on 29.02.2016, and on the very same date, by Ext.P20, the 2^nd respondent regularised the services of the petitioners along with three other individuals (totalling six persons) as Office Assistants, though without retrospective effect.

7. However, the petitioners state that the matter took a U-turn when the Member Secretary of the 4^th respondent Society, by Ext.P23 communication dated 04.04.2016, sought an explanation from the Director of the 2^nd respondent regarding the regularisation of the six Office Assistants. Following this, the Director submitted a reply by Ext. P26. Thereafter, in its Executive Committee Meeting held on 26.09.2016, the 4^th respondent concluded that the regularisation granted to the petitioners and the other three individuals was irregular and decided to cancel the same, as reflected in Ext.P31.

8. At that juncture, the petitioners filed W.P.(C) No.33653 of 2016 before this Court seeking to challenge the decision taken by the Executive Committee as above, at Ext.P31.

9. A detailed counter affidavit was also filed on behalf of the 2^nd respondent in the said writ petition, and the same has been produced in the present writ petition as Ext.P32. By Ext.P33 judgment dated 17.11.2022, this Court considered the rival contentions and issued the following directions:

“ 7. Having considered the contentions advanced, I am of the opinion that, in view of the fact that the petitioners had been appointed on a con