Regularization of temporary employees can be mandated based on regulatory provisions and prior service.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner, who is working as a temporary employee under the 2^nd respondent, Kerala State Waqf Board, states that with reference to the provisions of Clause 5.2(2) of Ext.P7 Regulations of the year 2016, since he was appointed with the requisite qualifications as per the Regulations in force at the time when he was appointed, the petitioner could be regularized in view of the 7 years’ service already put in.

2. Sri. C.S.Ajith Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner, points out that the 2^nd respondent Board has also recommended the regularization as above pursuant to the proceedings of Ext.P8, and that an application at Ext.P10 has been filed before the 1st respondent herein.

3. I have also heard Sri. Jamsheed Hafiz, learned Standing Counsel for respondents 2 and 3, as well as Sri. N.B Sunil Nath, learned Government Pleader.

4. In view of the contentions raised in this writ petition as well as the submissions made across the Bar, I am of the opinion that this writ petition can be disposed of with directions.

Therefore, the writ petition would stand disposed of directing the 1^st respondent herein to take note of Ext.P1 as well as the recommendation of the 2^nd respondent as evidenced by Ext.P8 and pass appropriate orders. While passing orders as above, the 1^st respondent shall take into account the judgment of the Apex Court in Jaggo v. Union of India [2024 KHC 6750(SC)]. So as to place the subsequent judgments on the point before the 1^st respondent, the petitioner would also be permitted to file a supplemental representation within a period of two weeks from today. Orders as above shall be issued by the Government within a period of eight weeks thereafter. Needless to say, the petitioner shall be granted an opportunity of being heard.

SD/-