Kerala High Court
Thara N vs State Of Kerala on 15 September, 2020
Author: Anu Sivaraman
Bench: Anu Sivaraman
WP(C).No.5489 OF 2020(I) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 24TH BHADRA, 1942
WP(C).No.5489 OF 2020(I)
PETITIONER:
THARA N
AGED 46 YEARS
W/O.DILEEP, CHIRAPPURATH (H), MANAKKAPPADAM,
THRISSUR.
BY ADV. SRI.N.KRISHNA PRASAD (PALKULANGARA)
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2 THE DIRECTOR,
THE KERALA FOREST RESEARCH INSTITUTE, PEECHI,
PEECHI (P.O), THRISSUR-690653.
3 THE EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT,
STATE COUNCIL FOR SCIENCE, TECHNICAL AND
ENVIRONMENT, SASTHRA BHAVAN, PATTAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004.
4 THE KERALA STATE COUNCIL FOR SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY AND
ENVIRONMENT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT,
SASTHRA BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004.
R2 BY SRI.IMAM GRIGORIOS KARAT, SC, KERALA FOREST
RESEARCH INSTITUTE
R3-4 BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KSCSTE
OTHER PRESENT:
GP SHRI. B.U.K. KAIMAL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-
09-2020, THE COURT ON 15-09-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.5489 OF 2020(I) 2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 15th day of September 2020
1. This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:-
"i)A writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ and declare that Exhibit P13 order is ab initio void.
ii)A writ of mandamus directing the respondents to regularize the service as Typist."
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader as well as the learned standing counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 4.
3. The petitioner contends that she had been working as a Typist under the second respondent from 8.11.2011. It is stated that she had preferred representations seeking regularisation of her services, which was directed to be considered by this Court. It is stated that pursuant to Ext.P2 dated 11.03.2014, the 2 nd respondent had taken a decision by Ext.P3 that the petitioner's services will be regularised. However, her services were sought to be terminated in 2014. The petitioner had approached this Court and by Ext.P6 there was a direction to consider her request for regularisation on the strength of Ext.P3. It is stated that persons working as Helpers in the 2nd respondent institute were promoted as Typist, but the WP(C).No.5489 OF 2020(I) 3 petitioner's request for regularisation was rejected on 20.7.2016 by Ext.P8. In Ext.P8, the reason stated for refusal to regularise the petitioner's service was that there was no post of Typist available and that the petitioner was not qualified going by the Special Rules for appointment against the post of Typist cum Stenographer, which was available in the institute.
4. The petitioner again challenged the order of termination, which ultimately resulted in Ext.P11 judgment directing the consideration of a later representation preferred by the petitioner, after hearing the petitioner as well. Ext P12 proceedings dated 16.3.2018 were issued. Thereafter, it is submitted that a further hearing was conducted and Ext.P13 proceedings dated 19.8.2018 were issued by the 2nd respondent rejecting the claim of the petitioner which is under challenge herein. It is submitted that it is evident from the material produced by the petitioner that a post of Typist was in existence in the KFRI and that the refusal on the part of the respondents to regularise the petitioner's services, while Helpers had been granted promotion as Typist is completely illegal and unsustainable. It is further submitted that the petitioner's services had been terminated without any procedure known to law in February, 2020 and that the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement with full back wages, since it is clear that the services of the WP(C).No.5489 OF 2020(I) 4 petitioner were utilised by the respondents for long periods of time. It is further submitted that the contention that there was no post available to accommodate the petitioner is factually incorrect and is made only for the purpose of defeating the legitimate claims of the petitioner.
5. A counter affidavit has been placed on record by the 2 nd respondent. It is stated therein that the petitioner had been engaged only in certain projects undertaken by the 2 nd respondent and that the rejection of the claims of the petitioner for regularisation was preceded by a proper hearing and a consideration of all her contentions. It is submitted that there was no post of Typist available in the 2nd respondent going by the staff pattern and that the qualification for the post of Typist cum Stenographer, which is the post available in the 2nd respondent, is Bachelor's Degree with Typewriting English (Higher), Typewriting Malayalam (Lower) and Shorthand English (Lower). It is submitted that the petitioner admittedly does not possess these qualifications and that the petitioner, who was engaged only on a daily wage basis directly by the Principal Investigators or Project Co-coordinators, had no claim for seeking regularisation under the respondents. It is further stated that the appointment of Helpers as Typist had also been cancelled and that the issue is pending before this Court. WP(C).No.5489 OF 2020(I) 5
6. Respondents 3 and 4 have also placed a detailed counter affidavit on record. It is stated that the petitioner was engaged as a daily rated employee in the projects undertaken by the 2 nd respondent and that the engagement of the petitioner was for the intermittent periods and not continuous. It is further submitted that the service conditions of employees working in the constituent institutions of the 3rd respondent is governed by the KSCSTE Service Rules and staff pattern as provided thereunder. It is submitted that there is no sanctioned post of Typist and that the petitioner is not qualified to hold the post of Typist cum Stenographer available in the staff pattern. It is further submitted that the entire contentions raised by the petitioner were considered and a speaking order was issued. It is stated that any earlier recommendations for regularisation would not have any effect in the foregoing factual situation.
7. I have heard the counsel appearing on all sides and considered the contentions advanced in detail. The specific case of the petitioner is that she is entitled to regularisation as Typist by reason of her long service as Typist under the respondents. The respondents have placed affidavits on record stating that the petitioner was never directly engaged by the 2 nd respondent and that she had worked as a daily wage Typist in projects undertaken by the 2 nd WP(C).No.5489 OF 2020(I) 6 respondent. It is further submitted that there was no post of Typist available in the 2nd respondent after the Special Rules of the 3 rd respondent have been made applicable to the 2 nd respondent, which is admittedly a constituent institution. With regard to the available post of Typist cum Stenographer, it is submitted that the petitioner is not qualified in terms of the Special Rules. In the above factual situation, I am of the opinion that the earlier decision, evidenced by Ext.P3, to consider the petitioner's claim for regularisation cannot be relied upon by the petitioner. In view of the fact that the contentions of the petitioner have been considered by the respondents while passing the impugned order, I am of the opinion that the prayers as sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted. The writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
Anu Sivaraman, Judge sj WP(C).No.5489 OF 2020(I) 7 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 MEDICAL CERTIFICATE FROM DR.PRABHANAMBISAN DATED 29.01.2020.
EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WP(c)NO.5526/2014 DATED 11.03.2014.
EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF ORDER NO.G.114/KFRI/ESTT/2003 DATED 04.06.2014.
EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF MINUTES OF THE 3RD MEETING OF THE STAFF COMMITTEE OF KFRI DATED 26.08.2014. EXHIBIT P5 PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION NOTIFICATION OF 2015 DATED NIL.
EXHIBIT P6 COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WP(C)NO.29280/2015 DATED 26.05.2016.
EXHIBIT P7 COPY OF ORDER NO.G69/KFRI/ESTT/86 DATED 15.01.2016.
EXHIBIT P8 COPY OF ORDER NO.G34/KFRI/ESTT/86 DATED 20.07.2016.
EXHIBIT P9 COPY OF JUDGMENT IN CON.CASE(C)NO.1390 OF 2016 (S) IN WP(C) 29280/2015 DATED 18.11.2016.
EXHIBIT P10 COPY OF REPRESENTATION NIL DATED THARA.N. CHIRAPPURATH(H), MANAKKAPADAM, THRISSUR FROM THE PETITIONER TO THE DIRECTOR KFRI, PEECHI, THRISSUR EXHIBIT P11 COPY OF ORDER JUDGMENT DATED 01.02.2018 IN WP(c)NO.2771/2018.
EXHIBIT P12 COPY OF ORDER NO.G35/KFRI/ESTT/1991 DATED 16.03.2018.
EXHIBIT P13 COPY OF ORDER NO. 35/KFRI/ESTT/1991 DATED 19.08.2018.
EXHIBIT P14 COPY OF JUDGMENT IN CON.CASE(C)NO.1379 OF 2018 IN WP(c)NO.2771/2018 DATED 01.02.2018. WP(C).No.5489 OF 2020(I) 8 EXHIBIT P15 COPY OF COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 DATED 26.02.2016.
EXHIBIT P16 COPY OF NOTICE NO.G114/KFRI/ESTT. 2016 DATED 08.06.2016 OF FROM THE DIRECTOR KFRI. EXHIBIT P17 COPY OF LETTER NO.3437/C2/2015KSCSTE DATED 28.06.2016 FROM THE CONTROLLER OF ADMINISTRATION KERALA STATE COUNCIL FOR SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT.
EXHIBIT P18 COPY OF LETTER NO.KSCSTE/2564/2019-C1 DATED 04.11.2019 FROM THE STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, KERALA STATE COUNCIL FOR SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT.
EXHIBIT P19 COPY OF LETTER NO.G129/KSCSTE/ESTT/2005 DATED 16.01.2020.
EXHIBIT P20 COPY OF STAFF PATTERN (1) FROM WEBSITE OF KFRI.
EXHIBIT P21 COPY OF STAFF PATTERN (II) FROM WEBSITE OF KFRI.
EXHIBIT P22 COPY OF LETTER NO.KSCSTE/2563/2019-C1 DATED 04.11.2019 FROM THE SPIO, KERALA STATE COUNCIL FOR SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT.
EXHIBIT P23 COPY OF AFFIDAVIT FILED BY DR.SYAMVISWANATH, DIRECTOR, KFRI, PEECHI, THRISSUR DATED 11.07.2019.
TRUE COPY PS TO JUDGE