Temporary employees cannot challenge a selection process after participating without disclosing their involvement.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 20th day of July 2022 This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:-

i) To issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order quashing Exhibit- P4 notification.

ii) Issue a writ of mandamus of any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 2nd and 3rd respondents not to terminate the petitioners from the Present employment.

iii) To declare that petitioners are not liable to be replaced by another set of temporary hands in the respective posts.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, the learned counsel appearing for the contesting party respondents as well as the learned counsel appearing for the additionally impleaded 9th respondent.

3. This writ petition had been filed on 28/4/2022 on this specific pleading that the petitioners, who were appointed in the Government Special School Teacher Training Centre, Parappanangadi are being disengaged for appointing other similarly situated temporary employees. The specific contentions raised was that, the 2nd respondent issued Ext.P3 letter directing the filling up of the vacancies in the Government Special School Teacher Training Centres, and that on the basis of Ext.P3, Ext.P4 notification had been issued. It was the specific contention that, Ext.P4 notification was dated 25/4/2022 and last date for filing the application was on 27/4/2022 at 12.00pm. The interview was to be conducted on 28/4/2022 and though the petitioners are fully qualified, there was no time for making their applications. It was contended that, there were no vacancies in the institutions at present, since the petitioners and similarly situated employees were continuing in service and that the vacancies are not reported to the PSC. It is therefore, contended that the procedure for filling up the posts held by the petitioners on a temporary basis, by other temporary employees is illegal and is against the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in State of Haryana and others V Piara Singh and others [1992(4)SCC 118].

4. This Court had, by order dated 19/5/2022 directed that the petitioners shall be retained in their posts, if they have not been relieved from service till now. The learned Government Pleader was also directed to get instructions on the contention that Ext.P4 notification was not published in the manner prescribed and that the time limit between the publication of the notification and the interview was less than two days.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioners have all the qualifications provided in Ext.P4 for appointment to the posts against which they are presently working and that there is no deficiency in their services. It is further contended that Ext.P3 order only directed the filling up of vacancies by notifying the vacant posts and that since the petitioners were actually holding the posts there were no vacancies or vacant posts. Reliance is placed on the decisions in Piara Singh 1992(4) SCC 118 and on a decision of Division Bench this Court is Abdul Haleem V. State of Kerala [2022 (3) KLT 47].

6. A detailed counter affidavit has been placed on record by the 3rd respondent. It is contended that the petitioners had been appointed on purely temporary basis on contract and without reference to the qualification prescribed by the Rehabilitation Council of India. From 2021-22, the Rehabilitation Council of India had revised the curricula of the programmes as per the Rights of Persons with Disabiliti