Statutory provisions for regularisation of employees under the Waqf Board Regulations supersede executive directives limiting the effect of such regularisation.

J U D G M E N T

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Both these writ petitions have been filed with similar set of facts and raise common question of law. Hence, they are heard together and disposed of by a common judgment.

2. The 1st petitioner in W.P.(C) No.7029/2022 was initially appointed as Temporary LD Clerk in the office of the 2nd respondent-Kerala State Waqf Board on 02.12.2006. The 2nd petitioner was appointed as Temporary LD Stenographer on 02.12.2006. The 3rd petitioner was appointed as Temporary LD Clerk on 09.03.2007. They were appointed as they were sponsored by employment exchange and were successful in a selection process consisting of written test and interview. The petitioners state that their selection and appointment were in accordance with the provisions contained in the Kerala Waqf Board Regulations, 2003.

3. The 1st petitioner is a graduate in Zoology and holds Post Graduate Diploma in Computer Application. He has also passed typewriting English Higher. The 2nd petitioner holds Diploma in Commercial Practice and is qualified in Computer Word Processing Malayalam Lower. The 3rd petitioner is a Commerce graduate and has qualified Typewriting English and Hindi Higher. He also holds DOEACC 'O' Level examination.

4. The petitioners state that during the time of their appointment, most of the employees under the Waqf Board were working on daily wages or contract basis. The 2nd respondent regularised the services of many employees.

One Smt. Junaitha filed W.P.(C) No.14845/2009 and this Court allowed the writ petition directing the respondents to regularise the service of Smt. Junaitha with retrospective effect and with consequential benefits.

5. Subsequently, the 2nd respondent initiated steps to regularise the service of temporary employees like the petitioners. While so, the 2003 Regulations were replaced by the Kerala State Waqf Board Regulations, 2016. Regulation 5.2(2) of Chapter 4 of the Regulations, 2016 provided that employees who were appointed through Employment Exchanges and continuing on contract basis with a minimum of seven years service, shall be allowed to continue in service and if such employees have all the qualifications prescribed under the Regulations, their services shall be regularised with prospective effect from the date of publication of Regulations. Ext.P4 Regulations were published on 01.02.2016.

6. The petitioners state that they are all qualified to hold their respective posts and their services are therefore liable to be regularised. However, the regularisation process was not proceed with. The petitioners therefore filed W.P.(C) No.19140/2017. This Court as per Ext.P20 judgment dated 28.07.2017 disposed of the writ petition directing the 1st respondent to consider the representations submitted by the petitioners. Contending that the representations of the petitioners were already rejected, the 1st respondent filed W.A. No.2300/2017 against Ext.P20 judgment. A Division Bench of this Court disposed of the Writ Appeal affirming Ext.P20 judgment, modifying the judgment to the extent to dispose of the pending representations in accordance with whichever Regulations in force.

7. On 24.07.2019, by Ext.P22 order, the 1st respondent rejected the representations of the petitioners. The petitioners challenged Ext.P22 order filing W.P.(C) No.23682/2019. This Court set aside Ext.P22 GO and directed the respondents to consider the matter afresh in terms of Regulations, 2016. Subsequently, the 1st respondent granted approval for regularisation of the services of the petitioners, as per Ext.P32. In Ext.P32, it was stated that regularisation will take effect only from the date of the GO. The petitioners would contend that the said condition goes against the provisions of the Regulations, 2016. The 3rd respondent, however, passed Ext.P34 proceedings regularising the services of the petitioners with effect from 01.01.2022 only. The petitioners are aggrieved by the prospective regularisation.

8. The petitioners submitted