Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 23615
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A. Muhamed Mustaque, Shoba Annamma Eapen, JJ
GOWRIKUTTY.G.S – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WA 1612 2023
ADVS.P.NANDAKUMAR, AMRUTHA SANJEEV, VIVEK VIJAYAKUMAR, RIYA TOMY, INDU C. SREEKUMAR, SMT.VINITHA B., SENIOR GP, SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC, SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM, SC, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA
Contractual employees cannot claim regularization unless their initial appointment followed a legally prescribed selection process.
Headnote:
Employment - Library Assistants - Kerala High Court Act, 1958 Section 5(i); Kerala University First Statutes, 1977 Chapter 4 Section 8 - The court upheld the dismissal of a writ petition as appellants' contractual employment did not comply with the prescribed recruitment process, thereby denying their claim for regularization.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants, Library Assistants on a contract basis for over 10 years, sought regularization from the Kerala University, which was dismissed by the Single Judge on grounds that their appointments did not follow proper selection procedures as per the Kerala University statutes.
Issues: Whether appellants, engaged as contract employees, are entitled to regularization in service given their contractual appointment without following the mandated selection process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that appointments must adhere to statutory provisions for selection to confer any rights to permanency, and that contractual employees cannot claim regularization in the absence of a proper recruitment process.
Final Decision: The writ appeal is dismissed.
J U D G M E N T
SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, J.
The judgment dated 25.08.2023 rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court, dismissing WP (C) No. 19991 of 2023, is the subject matter of this intra court appeal filed under Section 5 (i) of the Kerala High Court Act , 1958.
2. The appellants are few among the petitioners in WP(C) No.19991/2023. They are working as Library Assistants on contract basis with the Kerala University for more than 10 years. According to them, they have been appointed through a process known to law, however, after completing 10 years, the University was reluctant to regularize them without any reason. It was in the above circumstance that the appellants/petitioners approached this Court with the writ petition.
3. The learned Single Judge, while considering the writ petition, found that the appointment of the appellants was specifically on contract basis. They did not undergo a process of selection as provided in the Kerala University First Statutes , for regular appointment to non-teaching posts in the Kerala University. It was also found that in the agreements entered into by the appellants with the University, it was specifically stated that the appointment was for a limited period and that they would have no claim for regular appointment or any other service benefits attended thereto and also, by observing the fact that the regular method of appointment to non-teaching posts in the Kerala University is by selection through the Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC), the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants, learned Senior Government Pleader, learned Standing Counsel for the KPSC and learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala University.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned Single Judge had not considered several aspects including the fact that some of the petitioners had challenged the notification issued by the KPSC and also the fact that they have approached this Court after completing 10 years of service. The learned counsel further submitted that the learned Single Judge had not considered the fact that the regular appointment to the post of non-teaching staff, which includes the post of librarian in colleges, is similar to that of the appellants herein. It was further submitted that the Government had discriminated the appellants from several others, who are appointed on contract basis and completed 10 years in their respective fields by regularizing them.
6. The learned Standing Counsel for the University of Kerala submits that a statement had been placed on record, stating that all contract employees at the University are required to have a mandatory break of one working day after the conclusion of each contract period, followed by the execution of a new bond. The argument put forth is that the appellants were recruited following a walk-in-interview, and the appointment documents explicitly indicated that their positions were of purely temporary nature and they would not be entitled to any employment benefits based on temporary appointments. Furthermore, it is contended that the appellants were not hired for any officially sanctioned positions, nor were they selected by the legally mandated Selection Committee. It is further stated that the appellants were not engaged against any sanctioned post, and such posts must be filled in accordance with the prescribed qualifications and method of appointment. The learned counsel also relied on the judgments inState of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (3) [ (2006) 4 SCC 1 ]; Harminder Kaur & others v. Union of India & others [ (2009) 13 SCC 90 ]; Narendra Kumar Tiwari v.The State of Jharkand [ (2018) 8 SCC 238 ]; and Vibhuti Shankar Pandey v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others [2023 LiveLaw (SC) 91] in support of his contentions that the contract employees are not entitled for continuance of service or for regularisation when they were not engaged by any recognized procedure
