Kerala High Court
T.G.Aji Kumar vs The State Of Kerala on 12 November, 1999
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2013/21ST POUSHA 1934
WP(C).No. 30222 of 2012 (C)
---------------------------
PETITIONER:
-----------
T.G.AJI KUMAR, AGED 42 YEARS,S/O GOVINDAN,DRIVER
KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, ANGAMALY DEPOT
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED
SRI.K.E.HAMZA
RESPONDENTS:
-----------
1. THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT
SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2. THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LISHA MG.
R2 BY SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA,SC,KSRTC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11-01-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
vk
WP(C).No. 30222 of 2012 (C)
--------------------------
APPENDIX
-----------
PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS
------------------------
EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.E1/581/99/ANK OF THE ASST.
TRANSPORT OFFICER DATED 12.11.1999.
EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ADVICE MEMO ISSUED BY THE KERALA PUBLIC
SERVICE COMMISSION DATED 10.11.2009.
EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT
TRANSPORT OFFICER DATED 24.4.2010.
EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT
TRANSPORT OFFICER DATED 28.2.2011.
EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.PL.12/025739/2008 OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 26.12.2011.
EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
DATED 5.1.2012.
EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C)NO.8650 OF 2012 DATED
4.4.2012.
EXHIBIT P8: RUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.PL/16/014915/12 OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 24.9.2012.
EXHIBIT P9: TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BEFORE THE 1ST
RESPONDENT DATED 25.11.2012.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : nil
----------------------
/ TRUE COPY /
P.A. TO JUDGE
VK
P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.
-----------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.30222 of 2012
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of January, 2013
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, who is presently working as Driver in the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation for short) pursuant to a regular appointment after recruitment by the Kerala Public Service Commission, has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P8 order dated 24.9.2012 issued by the Chairman and Managing Director of the Corporation rejecting a request to regularise him in service as Conductor along with other empanelled Conductors.
2. The petitioner was appointed provisionally as Conductor in the service of the Corporation through the Employment Exchange with effect from 14.11.1999. The appointment was for a period of 179 days. He however, continued in service without break till 18.1.2010 when he was deputed for training pursuant to an order issued by the Corporation regularly appointing him as Reserve Driver, such appointment was based on Ext.P2 advice memo dated 10.11.2009 issued by the Kerala Public Service Commission. After training, the petitioner joined duty on 16.2.2010.
W.P(C).No.30222 of 2012 -:2:-
3. After the petitioner was regularly appointed as Driver, the Government issued G.O.(Ms)No.78/2011/Tran. dated 22.12.2011 according sanction for regularising provisional employees, namely 1353 empanelled Conductors, 720 empanelled Drivers and 392 empanelled Mechanical Staff subject to the terms and conditions set out therein. Pursuant thereto, the Corporation issued Ext.P5 order dated 26.12.2011 regularising 1353 empanelled Conductors, 720 empanelled Drivers and 392 empanelled Mechanical Staff subject to the terms and conditions stipulated therein. The petitioner had in the meanwhile completed 240 days of service as Reserve Driver pursuant to his regular appointment and thereupon, by Ext.P4 memorandum dated 28.2.2011 he was appointed as II Grade Driver with effect from 20.1.2011.
4. Shortly after the Corporation regularised the services of 1353 empanelled Conductors, 720 empanelled Drivers and 392 empanelled Mechanical Staff, the petitioner filed Ext.P6 representation dated 5.1.2012 before the Chairman and Managing Director of the Corporation requesting for change of category as Conductor. He thereafter filed W.P.(C)No.8650 of 2012 in this Court wherein he sought inclusion of his name in the list of empanelled Conductors as per Ext.P5. He also sought an order W.P(C).No.30222 of 2012 -:3:- directing the Chairman and Managing Director of the Corporation to consider Ext.P6 representation after affording him an opportunity of being heard, within a time limit to be fixed by this Court. By Ext.P7 judgment delivered on 4.4.2012 a learned single Judge of this Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the Chairman and Managing Director of the Corporation to consider Ext.P6 representation and pass orders thereon within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. The Chairman and Managing Director of the Corporation thereafter heard the petitioner on 24.9.2012 and issued Ext.P8 order dated 24.9.2012 rejecting his request for inclusion in the list of empanelled Conductors whose services were regularised as per Ext.P5. He thereafter filed Ext.P9 revision petition before the Government for an order directing the Chairman and Managing Director to regularise him in service as Conductor. This writ petition was thereafter filed on 17.12.2012 challenging Ext.P8 order and seeking the following reliefs:-
i) Call for the records relating to Exhibit P8 order and quash the original of the same by the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order.
ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction W.P(C).No.30222 of 2012 -:4:- commanding the 2nd respondent to include name of the petitioner also in the list of empanelled conductors regularized along with Exhibit P5.
iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 1st respondent to effectively consider and pass appropriate orders upon Exhibit P9 after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner within a time limit.
5. The petitioner, who was working as Conductor on a provisional basis ever since 14.11.1999, had applied for regular appointment as Driver in the Corporation pursuant to a notification inviting applications issued by the Kerala Public Service Commission. He was selected and included in the ranked list and was advised for appointment as per Ext.P2 advice memo dated 10.11.2009. Shortly thereafter he was appointed as Reserve Driver and he underwent training during the period from 18.1.2010 to 21.1.2010. After training, he joined duty as Reserve Driver on 16.2.2010. Ext.P3 memorandum was thereupon issued on 24.4.2010. After he completed 240 days of duty as Reserve Driver, he was appointed as II Grade Driver by Ext.P4 memorandum dated 28.2.2011. It was ten months thereafter that the Government issued G.O.(Ms)No.78/2011/Tran. dated W.P(C).No.30222 of 2012 -:5:- 28.12.2011 according sanction to regularise 1353 empanelled Conductors, 720 empanelled Drivers and 392 empanelled Mechanical Staff. The petitioner had on the date of the Government order dated 28.12.2011 ceased to be an empanelled Conductor and was a II Grade Driver in the service of the Corporation. He was therefore, not entitled to be regularised as an empanelled Conductor in the Corporation. The petitioner cannot in my opinion, contend that he was entitled to be regularised in service as a Conductor merely for the reason that he had earlier served as an empanelled Conductor in the Corporation. The petitioner's request in that regard was rightly rejected by the Managing Director. The Government order dated 22.12.2011 was issued to regularise empanelled employees who were not permanent employees of the Corporation. The petitioner, a permanent employee, cannot, therefore, claim the benefits of the aforesaid Government order.
I accordingly hold that the challenge to Ext.P8 is without any merit. The writ petition fails and is dismissed.
P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge.
ahg.
P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.
---------------------------
W.P.(C).No.30222 of 2012
----------------------------
JUDGMENT 11th January, 2013