Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
C.T.RAVIKUMAR, A.M.BABU, JJ
STATE OF KERALA – Appellant
Versus
SUNITHA BEEVI – Respondent
OP(KAT) 45/2017
Employment - Appointment Regularization - Kerala State Subordinate Services Rules Section List - The court reviewed the appointments made under Rule 9(a)(i) of KS&SSR, emphasizing the nature of appointments made via Employment Exchange and the need for a thorough assessment of available personnel for promotion to determine regularization.
Fact of the Case:
The original petitions were filed by the State against orders of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal concerning the appointment of sanitation workers and sweepers, who claimed regularization despite being appointed temporarily for 179 days.
Finding of the Court:
The Tribunal affirmed that the appointments were effectively regular as they followed appropriate recruitment protocols, thus entitling the workers to regular employment benefits, unless suitable candidates from part-time contingent services were available for promotion.
Issues: Whether the appointments made under Rule 9(a)(i) of KS&SSR for a period of 179 days could be considered regular and what implications arise for eligible candidates in the part-time contingent service.
Ratio Decidendi: The nature of employment appointments, even if claimed temporary, could be regular based on recruitment practices and availability of candidates from the designated seniority list, as established in case law.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the original petitions, upholding the Tribunal's decision regarding the regularization of the respondents' appointments.
JUDGMENT
C.T.Ravikumar, J.
The State and its officers filed the captioned original petitions on being aggrieved by the orders passed by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, on different dates, in certain original applications and one Transferred Application, carrying similar issues. To be precise, O.P(KAT) No.401/2017 is filed against the order dated 2.9.2014 in O.A.No.109/2014, O.P(KAT) No.378/2017 is filed against the order dated 15.6.2017 in O.A.No.1938/2013, O.P(KAT) No.473/2017 is filed against the order dated 10.07.2015 in T.A.No.6355/2012, O.P(KAT) No.209/2018 is filed against the order dated 2.6.2017 in O.A.No.78/2015, O.P(KAT) No.45/2017 is filed against the order dated 29.08.2016 in O.A.No.1484/2015, O.P(KAT) No.46/2017 is filed against the order dated 29.8.2016 in O.A.No.1793/2015 and O.P(KAT) No.69/2017 is filed against the order dated 21.11.2016 in O.A.No.1455/2015. The respondent/applicant in O.P(KAT) No.401/2017 and O.P(KAT) No.209/2018 is one and the same. The said respondent was constrained to file O.A.No.78/2015 from which O.P.(KAT) No.209/2018 arises as the petitioners did not disburse the salary pursuant to the order in O.A.No.109/2014. In such circumstances, we will deal with the claims and contentions in O.P(KAT) No.209/2018 after considering the other original petitions. Except O.P.(KAT) No.209/2018, virtually, the same question calls for consideration in all the other original petitions. The respondents in the said original petitions viz., the applicants were appointed under the Collegiate Education Department in different Government Colleges by the Principals concerned, either as Sanitation worker or Sweeper, on different dates. However, the precise case of the respondents/applicants is that though they were shown to have been appointed under Rule 9(a)(i) of Part II of the Kerala State Subordinate Services Rules (for short, 'KS & SSR') for a period of 179 days from the date of joining pursuant to the respective orders, their appointment is regular inasmuch as they were virtually recruited regularly through employment exchange after following the regular process of selection. Category 4 (b) (ii) of Rule 5 (a) of the Special Rules of Last Grade & Part Time Contingent Services, hereinafter referred for brevity 'the Special Rules', prescribe direct recruitment through employment exchange in the absence of suitable hands under item (i) that provides for promotion of part time contingent employees from the common seniority list prepared by the District Collector on revenue districtwise basis. Except the respondents/applicants in O.P.(KAT) No.46/2017, all the others approached the Tribunal essentially seeking regularisation of their services. They also sought for quashment of the orders of their appointment to the extent it limited the period of appointment to 179 days.
2. The petitioners herein/official respondents before the Tribunal countered the claims and contentions of the applicants/respondents herein, stoutly contending that all of them were appointed purely on provisional basis invoking the power under Rule 9(a) (i) of Part II KS & SSR for a period of 179 days from the date of joining. It is also contended that a perusal of the amendment brought to Rule 3 of the Special Rules would reveal that by such amendment Rule 9 under Part II KS & SSR was also made applicable to the last grade service. It is their submission that taking into account the contingency for effecting temporary appointment and as permitted under Rule 3 of the Special Rules, the authority competent invoked the power under Rule 9(a)(i) Part II KS & SSR and appointed the respondents/applicants specifically ordering that the appointment would be only for a period of 179 days and such appointment would not confer any right for regular appointment or regularisation.
3. The Tribunal considered the rival contentions in the light of the relevant provisions of law and the position of law settled by this Court as also by the Hon'ble Apex Court and
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
