Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 56669
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
N.NAGARESH, J
PRAVEEN KUMAR B.L. – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 43773 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.VARUN C.VIJAY, SMT.DIVYA CHANDRAN
For the Respondents: SMT.LATHA ANAND, SMT.PRINCY XAVIER
The legal right to claim regularisation in employment was under scrutiny, emphasizing discrimination and the need for fair assessment.
Headnote:In the instant writ petition, the Court examined the discrimination faced by the petitioner in regularisation compared to juniors. The respondents acknowledge a proposal for the petitioner's regularisation yet disagree on post eligibility. The Court directed consideration of the pending representation by the petitioner (paragraphs 1-5). The key issue addressed was whether the petitioner had a legal right to regularisation amidst claims of discrimination. The Court pointed out the necessity to assess the proposal in light of existing regulations and employee status (paragraphs 1-5). The Court ultimately directed the first respondent to consider the representation for regularisation while considering the ongoing proposal (final paragraph).
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. discrimination in employment regularisation. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. proposal for regularisation and employee status. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court's directive for considering the representation. (Para 5) |
JUDGMENT Dated this the 25th day of November, 2025 The petitioner states that despite having rendered more than 15 years of service under the 2nd respondent-Kerala State Women’s Development Corporation, he has been subjected to discrimination in the matter of regularisation. Respondents 4 to 6 are included in the list of persons proposed for regularisation in service. Respondents 5 and 6, being juniors to the petitioner, are considered for regularisation in service. Aggrieved by the non-consideration of the claim of the petitioner for regularisation in service, the petitioner preferred Ext.P10 representation before the 1st respondent, which is pending consideration. The petitioner filed this writ petition seeking a direction to the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P10 at the earliest.
2. Standing Counsel entered appearance on behalf of respondents 2 and 3 and resisted the writ petition. The Standing Counsel submitted that the petitioner does not have a legal right to claim regularisation of service. However, taking into consideration the fact situation, the Kerala State Women’s Development Corporation Limited has made a proposal for regularisation of certain employees including the petitioner. The Standing Counsel made available a letter No.KSWDC/Est/EMP/209/2019/4600 dated 21.10.2025 forwarding a proposal to regularise 21 employees.
3. From the memo and the list produced by the respondents, I find that the petitioner is placed at Serial No.1. In the details of contract and daily wage employees, who have completed ten years, proposed for supernumerary position of LDC (Degree holders).
4. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was initially appointed as Project Co-ordinator and later became Regional Manager as per Ext.P2 order. Presently, the petitioner is working as Business Executive Officer. However, Robert Paul C and Sumila K.V., who are juniors to the petitioner, are sought to be regularised in the sanctioned post. Counsel for the petitioner would, therefore, contend that it will not be sufficient that he is considered for regularisation against a supernumerary post of LDC. As his juniors are being accommodated as Project Assistant / Recovery Assistant, the petitioner should also be regularised in the same post or in a superior post.
5. Going through the pleadings and the documents made available, it is evident that the respondents have already made a proposal for regularisation of the petitioner. As regards the post to which the petitioner is to be regularised, the petitioner has made a representation in this regard by way of Ext.P10 before the 1st respondent. In the facts of the case, I am of the view that the 1st respondent shall consider the same in the interest of justice.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of recording the communication dated 21.10.2025 of the Managing Director of the Kerala State Women’s Development Corporation Limited and directing the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P10 representation while considering the proposal for regularisation submitted by the Corporation.
