Temporary appointments not challenged prior to expiration cannot be converted into regular positions, protecting the rights of eligible candidates.

JUDGMENT

P.V.BALAKRISHNAN,J This intra-court appeal is filed by the petitioner in W.P.

(C)No.74/2015 challenging the judgment dated 05.01.2024 passed by the learned single judge dismissing his writ petition.

2. The appellant/writ petitioner is presently working as Sweeper Cum Watchman in the office of the 2^nd respondent. According to the appellant the said appointment was made pursuant to a requisition made by the 2^nd respondent to the District Employment Officer, Thiruvananthapuram, for a permanent vacancy of Sweeper Cum Watchman. The appellant, who had registered his name in the Employment Exchange in the year 2001, on the basis of his registration seniority and communal rotation, was called for an interview by the 2^nd respondent on 30.04.2014, as sponsored by the District Employment Officer. After the interview, the 2^nd respondent appointed the appellant to the post of Sweeper Cum Watchman, as per Ext.P3 order dated

11.07.2014. It is the case of the appellant that even though he was appointed through one of the regular methods of appointment, as per the Special Rules, he was admitted to duty only provisionally in violation of the Special Rules. Subsequently, the appellant was threatened to be terminated from service on completion of 179 days of duty, on 05.01.2015 stating that his appointment was provisional. It is in such circumstances, the appellant filed the afore writ petition seeking the following reliefs:

“i) to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 2^nd Respondent to permit the petitioner to continue in service till the date of his superannuation.

ii) To issue a Writ of Certiorari quashing the stipulation in the Exhibit P3 Appointment Order that the appointment of the Petitioner is provisional which is illegal and against the provisions contained in the Special Rules for Kerala Last Grade Service.

iii) To declare that the appointment of the petitioner as Sweeper Cum Watchman as per Exhibit P3 Order is as per regular method of appointment and he is not liable to be terminated after completion of 179 days.”

3. The learned Single Judge after considering the materials on record and hearing both sides, dismissed the writ petition. 4. Heard Adv.Nandakumar P., the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Adv.K.P.Harish, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent and Adv.S.Krishna, the learned Counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent.

5.The learned counsel for the appellant, by relying on Ext.P4 judgment and the judgment in W.A.No.96/2000 contended that, since the appellant has been appointed to a permanent vacancy, through a selection process mandated by the Special Rules, the stand taken by the respondents, that the appointment is only temporary and that too, for 179 days, is illegal. He argued that the appointment was made pursuant to a requisition made by the 2^nd respondent to the District Employment Officer for filling up a permanent vacancy. He also argued that it is on the basis of seniority and communal rotation, the appellant was called for an interview by the 2^nd respondent, as sponsored by the District Employment Officer and the appointment made, after conducting the interview. He contended that as per Special Rules for the Kerala Last Grade Service, if there are no suitable hands in the feeder category, the method of appointment prescribed is direct recruitment through Employment Exchange, and in the case on hand, it is in the absence of such a candidate in the feeder category, the appellant was appointed through direct recruitment.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned judgment and contended that there are no grounds to in