Kerala High Court
Deepa Das.D vs Centre For Continuing Education Kerala on 2 July, 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA
WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 25TH MAGHA, 1939
WP(C).No. 22969 of 2017
PETITIONER(S) :
DEEPA DAS.D,
AGED 28 YEARS, W/O.SIJU I.J,
KUZHIVILA VEEDU, PERUKAVU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 573.
BY ADV.SRI.P.M.MOHAMMED SHIRAZ
RESPONDENT(S):
1. CENTRE FOR CONTINUING EDUCATION KERALA
[ESTABLISHED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA],
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR,
ANATHARA LANE, KOWDIAR P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 003.
2. THE DIRECTOR,
CENTRE FOR CONTINUING EDUCATION KERALA,
ANANTHARA LANE, KOWDIAR P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 003.
3. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.
4. ANITHA ANTONY,
LIBRARY ASSISTANT, KERALA STATE CIVIL SERVICE ACADEMY,
ANATHARA LANE, KOWDIAR P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 003.
R1 & R2 BY ADVS. SRI.LINDONS C.DAVIS
SMT.E.U.DHANYA
SMT.LATHA ANAND
R3 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.MARY BEENA JOSEPH
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 14-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
Msd.
WP(C).No. 22969 of 2017 (U)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF DEGREE CERTIFICATE DATED
02.07.2010 ISSUED BY UNIVERSITY OF KERALA TO THE
PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF POST GRADUATE DEGREE
CERTIFICATE DATED 21.07.2015 ISSUED TO PETITIONER
BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE
DATED 27.04.2012 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER DATED 10.04.2015 OF THE
2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED
26.05.2016 OF THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF APPLICATION DATED 22.08.2016
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF LETTER DATED 04.10.2016 AND
ANNEXURE THERETO.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER DATED 05.12.2016 OF THE
KERALA STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER DATED 31.03.2017 OF THE
2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF LETTER DATED 29.09.2016 OF THE
PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 07.04.2016 OF
THE PETITIONER.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :
EXHIBIT R1(A): TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF HON'BLE KERALA STATE HUMAN
RIGHTS COMMISSION DATED 23.05.2017.
EXHIBIT R1(B): TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE KERALA
STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
DATED 03.06.2017.
//TRUE COPY//
P.S.TO JUDGE
Msd.
P.V.ASHA, J.
--------------------------
W.P(C) No.22969 of 2017-U
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 14th day of February, 2018
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, who has been working as Library Assistant under respondents 1 and 2, has filed this writ petition challenging the appointment of the 4th respondent in her place and for a direction to respondents 1 to 3 to engage her as Library Assistant in the Kerala State Civil Service Academy, Trivandrum, while challenging Ext.P9 order rejecting her request for re- engagement.
2. The petitioner is a graduate in English Literature and Postgraduate in Library Science. She was engaged as a Library Attender under the 1st respondent since 2.4.2009. It is stated that she became a Library Assistant after a period of 5 years. While working so she availed maternity leave. Thereafter, she was permitted to re-join duty as per Ext.P4 order issued on 10.04.2015 and while continuing so she was abruptly terminated from service from 05.04.2016 onwards. The 2 nd respondent W.P(C) No.22969 of 2017-U 2 appointed the 4th respondent in her place. Though the petitioner submitted several representations requesting to reinstate her, the respondents did not accede to it.
3. The petitioner submits that the 1st respondent institution-the Civil Service Academy, is situated in an isolated place; she was assigned late evening shift duty upto 10 p.m and she had to go home under threat of antisocial elements; the first respondent institution did not provide any transport facility to the female staff working in late hours; the petitioner submits that she had therefore requested the 2 nd respondent not to assign her duty after 6 p.m. According to her, the reason for terminating her service is that request, and apart from that the 2 nd respondent wanted to induct the 4th respondent.
4. The petitioner submits that when there was no positive action on her representations before the 2nd respondent as well as the Chief Minister and Minster, she approached the Human Rights Commission with Ext.P6 complaint against the termination, explaining the circumstances which led to it, regarding the wages, right to regular appointment, etc.
5. In Ext.P7 report submitted before the Commission, the 2 nd respondent stated that the petitioner was engaged on daily wages from W.P(C) No.22969 of 2017-U 3 2.4.2009 onwards and thereafter she availed maternity leave in November, 2014 and she rejoined on 10.04.2015. It was stated that there is no provision to grant maternity leave for a period of 4 B= months, as claimed by the petitioner; after availing maternity leave from 15.11.2014, the petitioner requested for permission to rejoin duty on 31.03.2015; she was permitted to re-join on 10.04.2015 only because of her repeated requests; it is upto the 2 nd respondent to decide whether a temporary hand appointed under him is to be retained or not; 2 female employees and one male employee worked in the library in 3 shifts; considering the request of the petitioner, the male employee alone was assigned night duty; in the event of assigning night duty to the senior female employee transportation facility was provided; the 2 nd respondent denied the allegations raised by the petitioner and stated that the question of removal or retention is a matter purely within the powers of the 2nd respondent.
6. The Human Rights commission thereafter issued Ext.P8 order on 05.12.2016 directing the 2nd respondent to engage the petitioner on daily wages. It was found that the approach of the respondents towards the petitioner, who was working on daily wages for the last more than 7 years was not proper. Even though there was a direction from the Human Rights W.P(C) No.22969 of 2017-U 4 Commission to re-engage the petitioner, the 2nd respondent sought a clarification from the Government and thereafter issued Ext.P9 order stating that there was no vacancy available to accommodate her, as there were only 4 posts in the library, against which, two male employees and two female employees are already working. It was stated that the facilities available in the civil service academy continued to be the same based on which the petitioner started complaining against it. The 2 nd respondent stated that the direction of the Human Rights Commission cannot be implemented. This writ petition was filed thereafter challenging Ext.P9 order, when the petitioner came to know that the 2nd respondent had appointed the 4th respondent in her place.
7. Respondents 1 and 2 filed counter affidavit stating that the petitioner abandoned the post and had not been attending duty from 6.4.2016 onwards. It is also stated that in her place the 4 th respondent had already been appointed on 21.7.2016. They stated that the petitioner approached this Court only on 11.7.2017 after a period of more than one year and 3 months of the alleged termination; she had approached the Kerala Human Rights Commission with Ext.P6 petition only on 22.8.2016, i.e, after a period of 4 B= months of the alleged termination. Pointing out the appointment of the 4 th W.P(C) No.22969 of 2017-U 5 respondent, the 2nd respondent stated that the petitioner's reinstatement is impractical and inequitable. The respondents alleged that when the Human Rights Commission called for the action taken report as per notice dated 23.05.2017, the respondents had filed a report stating that there is no vacancy to accommodate the petitioner. As no further proceedings were there, it is stated that the Commission has closed the matter. The respondents allege that the petitioner filed this writ petition suppressing these facts adopting forumn shopping. It is further alleged that the petitioner, who was appointed only on daily wages, is not entitled to any leave in the style of b