Prolonged temporary employment does not confer a right to regularization as per established judicial precedents.

J U D G M E N T

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The petitioner, who is a physically challenged person suffering from 40% vision impairment, has approached this Court seeking to direct the respondents to frame a Scheme and consider the claim of the petitioner for regularisation of service and to direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to work on all working days in a month without break.

2. The petitioner is working as Sweeper-cum-

Messenger under the 1^st respondent-Kerala Gramin Bank. The petitioner states that he was originally appointed on

06.11.2000 after a due selection process through Employment Exchange. From the date of appointment, he has been engaged on daily wage basis for 15 days every month continuously. This arrangement is continuing for the past 22 years. In the meanwhile, the petitioner has been transferred from one Branch to another.

3. The petitioner states that he is now aged 56 years and he is the only disabled person serving the Bank continuously from the year 2000 onwards. The Bank has been making payment to his Provident Fund account also.

4. Though the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi and others [ (2006) 4 SCC 1 ], had directed to formulate a Scheme for regularisation of workers, the respondents have not taken any steps in that regard till date. The petitioner submitted Ext.P5 representation before the Chief Minister. The representation was forwarded to the State Level Bankers Committee, who in turn forwarded the same to the 1^st respondent. In spite of that, the petitioner's service is not regularised. The petitioner has therefore approached this Court.

5. The counsel for the petitioner relied on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in State of Kerala v. K. Murukan [2025 KHC 132] and argued that whether an appointment is labelled as provisional or temporary, such appointment can be regularised if it is made after following the prescribed procedure. The counsel for the petitioner also relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Jaggo v. Union of India and others [(2024) SCC OnLine SC 3826] and in Umadevi (supra) to urge that the petitioner has a right to be considered for regularisation.

6. Standing Counsel appeared on behalf of the respondents and opposed the writ petition. The respondents submitted that the petitioner was originally appointed in the South Malabar Gramin Bank which was later merged with the Kerala Gramin Bank in the year 2013. The South Malabar Gramin Bank issued Ext.R1(a) notification for regularisation of services of its adhoc employees. 111 Full Time Messenger posts and one post of Driver-cum-Messenger were set apart to be filled up by regularisation. Three posts were reserved for physically handicapped.

7. About 373 employees submitted applications and the South Malabar Gramin Bank prepared a select list of 112 candidates. The select list was challenged in W.P.(C) No.15027/2008 and connected cases. This Court held that the select list is unsustainable and that the posts can be filled up through direct recruitment only. The employees as well as the Bank challenged the judgment of the learned Single Judge filing writ appeals before the Division Bench. The Division Bench set aside Ext.R1(d) judgment and the Bank was directed to examine whether those who are included in the select list are eligible for regularisation in the light of the judgment in Umadevi (supra).

8. The Bank, after examining the matter, decided to accept the sele