Kerala High Court
Lajeesh L.S vs State Of Kerala on 17 November, 2025
Author: N.Nagaresh
Bench: N.Nagaresh
2025:KER:88104
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025 / 26TH KARTHIKA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 3792 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
LAJEESH L.S
AGED 40 YEARS, S/O LAKSHMANAN, LD CLERK,
THE STATE INSTITUTE OF LANGUAGES, NALANDA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 003, RESIDING AT L S
BHAVAN, KARUMKULAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695526.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.NANDAKUMAR
SMT.AMRUTHA SANJEEV
SHRI.VIVEK VIJAYAKUMAR
SMT.MERIN K JIMMY
SMT.ANJANA ROY
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF CULTURAL AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001.
W.P.(C)No.3792 of 2024
:2:
2025:KER:88104
2 THE STATE INSTITUTE OF LANGUAGES
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR,NALANDA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695003.
BY ADVS.
SRI. P.C. SASIDHARAN., STANDING COUNSEL
SRI. PREMCHAND R. NAIR, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 17.11.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C)No.3792 of 2024
:3:
2025:KER:88104
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 17th day of November, 2025 The petitioner states that he is a differently abled person with 60% Locomotor Disability. The petitioner seeks to set aside Ext.P13 and to direct the respondents to regularise the service of the petitioner as LD Clerk with effect from 10.12.2007 in the light of Exts.P6, P8 and P11 orders, with all consequential benefits.
2. The petitioner states that the petitioner was appointed as DTP Operator on a daily wage basis in connection with a project work undertaken by the 2 nd respondent-State Institute of Languages. The petitioner was appointed, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner is a Person with Disability. W.P.(C)No.3792 of 2024 :4:
2025:KER:88104
3. Though the petitioner was initially appointed for a project work, the petitioner was continuously employed. On 08.01.2015, the 2nd respondent made a proposal to the 1st respondent for regularisation of the services of the petitioner. While a decision thereon was pending, the petitioner was appointed as Lower Division Clerk on a temporary basis on 05.08.2016, as per Ext.P3.
4. The petitioner states that similarly situated employees, who were also Persons with Disabilities, approached this Court for regularisation of their services. They had approached the Kerala State Human Rights Commission, which had earlier directed the respondents to consider their case of regularisation. By Ext.P5 judgment, this Court directed the respondents to implement the directions given by the Kerala State Human Rights Commission. Consequently, the Government issued Ext.P6 order regularising the services of the four employees. W.P.(C)No.3792 of 2024 :5:
2025:KER:88104
5. The petitioner states that the Kerala State Human Rights Commission has passed Ext.P8 order in favour of the petitioner also. However, the petitioner's service was not regularised. In fact, the petitioner's case was not considered while passing Ext.P6 order. Government, however, subsequently rejected the claim of the petitioner for regularisation as per Ext.P13, relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Karnataka and others v. Uma Devi and others [(2006) 4 SCC 1]. The petitioner challenges Ext.P13 order issued by the Government.
6. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the approval for regularisation of the petitioner's service was granted by the governing body of the 2 nd respondent. The Kerala State Human Rights Commission also has made a recommendation. Similarly placed employees have been regularised. The rejection of the petitioner's request based W.P.(C)No.3792 of 2024 :6: 2025:KER:88104 on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Uma Devi (supra) is unjustifiable, as the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) does not prohibit or prevent the Government absolutely from regularising employees who have rendered long years of service. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that as a one-time relaxation, the services of employees who have been in service for a long period can be regularised. Ext.P13 is highly discriminatory, contended the Counsel for the petitioner.
7. The 1st respondent resisted the writ petition filing a counter affidavit. The 1 st respondent stated that this Court directed the Government to implement the order of the Human Rights Commission, which was passed at the instance of certain employees of the 2 nd respondent. Consequently, the service of 10 disabled employees was regularised as per Government Order dated 07.12.2018 with effect from the date of the Government order, considering W.P.(C)No.3792 of 2024 :7: 2025:KER:88104 the same as a special case.
8. The 1st respondent submitted that the petitioner has approached the Kerala State Human Rights Commission requesting to appoint him as an LD Clerk. The petitioner was not selected by any recruitment process. The Director of State Institute of Languages has informed the Human Rights Commission that the petitioner was appointed in the Institute in the posts of DTP Operator and Peon on humanitarian consideration. He was not appointed by any recruitment process.
9. Government Pleader further relied on Ext.R1(d) Circular dated 08.07.2022 and argued that the fact that some persons have been working for a long time would not mean that they have acquired a right for regularisation. Sympathy and sentiments cannot be grounds for passing any order of regularisation in the absence of a legal right.
W.P.(C)No.3792 of 2024:8:
2025:KER:88104
10. Government Pleader representing the 1st respondent further submitted that the High Court, in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, should not issue directions for regularisation, absorption or permanent continuance unless the employees claiming regularisation had been appointed in pursuance of a regular recruitment process in accordance with the relevant rules.
11. The 2nd respondent also filed a counter affidavit. The 2nd respondent submitted that the petitioner joined as DTP Operator on daily wages for a project work on 10.12.2007. His appointment was on a contract basis. The post of LD Clerk is a post to be filled up by direct recruitment from open market and that too through a selection to be conducted by the Kerala Public Service Commission.
12. The 2nd respondent submitted that other employees who were regularised, were working in Vijnanamudranam Press from Vocational Rehabilitation W.P.(C)No.3792 of 2024 :9: 2025:KER:88104 Centre, Nalanchira, Trivandrum. An agreement was entered into between the Vijnanamudranam Press and the Institute on 20.10.1998. The Press is undertaking the binding work of the Institute. The employees in the Vocational Rehabilitation Centre are working in the Press as Binders from 1998 onwards. The benefit was granted to those employees as a special case in terms of the directives issued by the competent authorities. The writ petition is therefore liable to be dismissed.
13. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader representing the 1st respondent and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent.
14. The petitioner was appointed as DTP Operator on a daily wage basis on 10.12.2007. Though the petitioner was initially engaged against a project work as DTP Operator, it is evident that even after the project work, W.P.(C)No.3792 of 2024 :10: 2025:KER:88104 the petitioner was continued to be employed. The petitioner is a person with 60% Locomotor Disability.
15. The petitioner was continued to be engaged for the next eight years. As per Ext.P2, the 2 nd respondent had made a proposal to the Government for regularisation of the service of the petitioner. While the proposal was pending, there arose a vacancy of Lower Division Clerk in the year 2016 and the petitioner was appointed as Lower Division Clerk on a temporary basis on 05.08.2016. The petitioner is continuing in the said post now.
16. It is seen that similarly situated persons approached the Kerala State Human Rights Commission. The Human Rights Commission was of the opinion that the cases of the similarly situated persons are liable to be considered for regularisation. The said employees approached this Court and this Court as per Ext.P5 W.P.(C)No.3792 of 2024 :11: 2025:KER:88104 judgment directed to implement the directions of the Kerala State Human Rights Commission. Consequently, those employees were regularised as per Ext.P6 on conditions stipulated by the Government.
17. The petitioner is a similarly situated employee. The petitioner is also a Person with Disability. The petitioner suffers 60% Locomotor Disability. The 2 nd respondent sought to make a distinction between the employees covered by the Government Order and the petitioner in this writ petition, stating that those persons were sourced through the Vocational Rehabilitation Centre. The petitioner was appointed on compassionate grounds at that point of time considering the physical disability of the petitioner.
18. Now about 18 years have lapsed since the engagement of the petitioner. The petitioner had approached the Kerala State Human Rights Commission W.P.(C)No.3792 of 2024 :12: 2025:KER:88104 which passed Ext.P8 order, directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner. It is evident that the petitioner and the employees regularised as per Ext.P6 Government Order are similarly situated and on the same footing. Though the source of recruitment of other employees are from Vocational Rehabilitation Centre, it is to be noted that they were also not sourced through Kerala Public Service Commission or the Employment Exchange.
19. Considering the afore facts, discriminating the petitioner on the basis of source of recruitment would be thoroughly unjustified. When other physically disabled employees who were working under the 2nd respondent for long years of service regularised, excluding the petitioner alone from the benefit of regularisation will be highly arbitrary and offending Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It may be noted that while the petitioner's case of regularisation was declined relying on the judgment of the W.P.(C)No.3792 of 2024 :13: 2025:KER:88104 Hon'ble Apex Court in Uma Devi (supra), in the case of employees covered by Ext.P6 Government Order, Uma Devi's case was not resorted to, even though the regularisation was after the year 2006.
In the circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of setting aside Ext.P13 and directing the 1 st respondent to take a decision afresh in the matter in tune with Ext.P6 Government Order. It is made clear that the petitioner shall be granted the same treatment as is granted to other employees regularised as per Ext.P6 Government Order, disregarding the difference in source of recruitment.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH JUDGE ams W.P.(C)No.3792 of 2024 :14: 2025:KER:88104 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3792/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF DISABILITY CERTIFICATE DATED 26.03.2021 ISSUED BY THE MEDICAL BOARD, MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.
E1/1269/2011/SIL DATED 08.01.2015
SENT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER
NO.E1/1787/2016/SIL DATED 05.08.2016 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 23.03.2017 IN W.P(C) NO. 25985 OF 2014 Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 23.03.2017 IN W.P(C) NO. 4817 OF 2013 Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF GO(RT)47/2018/CLAD DATED 07.12.2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.E1/2030/2019/SIL DATED 29.07.2019 SENT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 17.12.2019 IN HRMP NO. 4153/11/12/2019 OF THE KERALA HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.E1/2013/2019/SIL DATED 14.02.2020 SENT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.E1/1992/2021/SIL DATED 23.10.2021 SENT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF GO(RT)NO.1/2023/CLAD W.P.(C)No.3792 of 2024 :15: 2025:KER:88104 DATED 12.01.2023 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 06.02.2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.C1/60/2023/CLAD DATED 05.07.2023 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ADDRESSING THE KERALA HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION AND THE 2ND RESPONDENT RESPONDENT EXHIBITS EXHIBIT R2(a) TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(MS)31/22/CLAD DATED 25/11/2022 Exhibit R1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.
E1/2672/2013/SIL DATED 09.08.2016 Exhibit R1(b) TRUE COPY OF THE GO(MS) NO.
31/2022/CLAD DATED 25.11.2022 Exhibit R1(c) TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT) NO.
307/2023/CLAD DATED 20.06.2023 Exhibit R1(d) TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.
55/2022/FIN DATED 08.07.2022