Provisional appointments can be regularized if made following requisite formalities and not violating applicable rules, emphasizing the authority's compliance with appointment procedures.

JUDGMENT

P.Krishna Kumar, J.

O.P.(KAT)No.343/2017

The respondent, a physically challenged person having 40% permanent disability, after being selected through Employment Exchange was provisionally appointed as a Sweeper in the Government Central Press, Thiruvananthapuram by the Director of Printing, the second petitioner herein, for a maximum period of 179 days or till appointing a permanent hand, as per Annexure A2. Later, the respondent approached the Kerala Administrative Tribunal seeking a declaration that he has been appointed on a regular basis and hence he should be regularised in the service with retrospective effect.

2. Referring to Rule 4 (b)of the Special Rules for the Kerala Last Grade Service (‘the Special Rules’, for short) and following the earlier decision of the Tribunal inM.Murukan v. The Principal, Government College, Attappady & Another (KAT Reporter Volume 4 (2015) Part I Page78), the declaration as sought for was granted finding that the case of the respondent is identical to the petitioner in the said case. The Tribunal further followed the decision of this court in W.A.No.96/2000, wherein a similar appointment of Hospital Attendants Grade II was approved by this court.

O.P(KAT)No.344/2017

3. In this case, two Sanitation Workers were appointed in the Government Central Press, Thiruvananthapuram, as per Annexure A2 for a period of 179 days under Rule 9(a)(i) of Part II of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958 , based on the list received from the District Employment Exchange. They approached the Tribunal contending that the post of Sanitation Worker is included in the Special Rules and one of the methods for appointment is through the Employment Exchange and that they were accordingly appointed against substantive vacancies by their Head of the Department, in the absence of a common seniority list of Part-time contingent employees maintained by the District Collector for appointment by promotion.

4. The Tribunal directed the second respondent to verify whether there was any such common seniority list and whether any eligible claimant was available on the date of occurrence of the vacancy or appointment and if not, the appointment of the respondents should be treated as regular.

5. The State challenges the findings of the Tribunal mainly on the following grounds:

(i) As per the Special Rules, the competent authority to make regular appointment to the post of Sweeper under category 4, is the District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram and not the Director of Printing.

(ii) Appointment made under Annexure A2 (in O.P(KAT)No.343/2017) and Annexure A1 in the other case was on a provisional basis and for 179 days alone and hence it cannot be considered as a permanent appointment to a substantive vacancy.

(iii) For the mere reason that an appointment is made from a list forwarded from the Employment Exchange, it would not become a permanent appointment, as contemplated under Rule 4.

(iv) The Tribunal went wrong in following the above said decisions for the reason that the cases involved therein were in respect of appointment of Sweepers in Health Service, Medical Colleges Employees’ State Insurance, Indian Systems of Medicine, Animal Husbandry etc., where the District Collector is not the appointing authority.

6. We heard the learned Senior Government Pleader and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

7. The learned Senior Government Pleader vehemently contended that when the appointing authority is the District Collector, the appointment made by the Director of Printin