Kerala High Court
Dhanesh T.P vs The State Of Kerala
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST 2016/1ST BHADRA, 1938
WP(C).No. 22546 of 2016 (P)
----------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-------------
1. DHANESH T.P.
AGED 33 YEARS, S/O. A.V. AMBADI,
KANIANTHOL, PADAVOOR P.O., KASARGOD DISTRICT,
PIN-671 313.
2. DAMODHARAN
AGED 41 YEARS, S/O. NARAYANAN V.V.
PILANTHOLI, CHEEMENI P.O., CHERUVATHUR (VIA)
KASARGOD DISTRICT-671 313.
3. DHANESH MON. K.A.
AGED 37 YEARS, S/O. K.N. ASHOK KUMAR,
NEAR AYURVEDA HOSPITAL, CHEEMENI, CHEMMEENI P.O.,
CHERUVATHUR (VIA), KASARADOG DISTRICT-671 313.
BY ADVS.SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN (SR.)
SMT.VANDANA MENON
SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR
SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2. DIRECTOR,
CO-OPERATIVE ACADEMY OF PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION (CAPE)
VIKAS BHAVAN P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.
3. PRINCIPAL,
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, THRIKKARIPPUR,
CHEEMENI P.O., CHERUVATHUR (VIA),
KASARGOD, KERALA-671 313.
R2 BY ADV.SRI.V.KRISHNA MENON, SC, CO.OP.ACADEMY OF
PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION
R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.P.PADMALAYAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
23-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAYDELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 22546 of 2016 (P)
----------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04.07.2013 APPOINTING THE 1ST
PETITIONER AS PEON ON CONTRACT BASIS IN THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE
1ST PETITIONER DATED 11.01.2016.
EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE
1ST PETITIONER DATED 23.06.2016.
EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE
1ST PETITIONER DATED 23.06.2016.
EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE EXPERINCE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 24.06.2016.
EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12.09.2011 ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER.
EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT RENEWING
THE CONTRACT APPOINTMENT OF THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 11.11.2015.
EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.6.2016 ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER.
EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE
2ND PETITIONER DATED 23.06.2016.
EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF THE EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD PETITIONER.
EXT.P11: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.07.2015. ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD PETITIONER.
EXT.P12: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED
23.06.2016, TERMINATING THE 3RD PETITIONER.
EXT.P13: TRUE COPY OF THE EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD PETITIONER ON 24.06.2016.
EXT.P14: TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST LETTER ISSUED TO THE 2ND
RESPONDENT BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 22.6.2016.
EXT.P15: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 7.7.2016 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT.
EXT.P16: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND ORDER DATED 25.2.2016
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
WP(C).No. 22546 of 2016 (P)
----------------------------
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:
-----------------------
EXT.R2(A): TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER NO.CET/E-279/2013
DATED 4.7.2013.
EXT.R2(B): TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.E2-3732/2013/CAPE/153 DATED
11.1.2016.
EXT.R2(C): TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.E4-8542/2010/CAPE/3267
DATED 2.9.2011.
EXT.R2(D): TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 11.11.2015.
EXT.R2(E): TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF APPOINTMNET NO.CET/E/611/2102
DATED 24.7.2015.
EXT.R2(F): TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.6.2016 ISSUED TO THE THIRD
PETITIONER.
//TRUE COPY//
P.S.TO JUDGE
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.
-------------------------------
W.P.(C).NO.22546 OF 2016 (P)
-----------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of August, 2016
J U D G M E N T
The petitioners are employees, who have been appointed on contract basis, by the 2nd respondent, for tenures of one year at a time. The 1st petitioner was initially appointed on contract basis for a year, on 4.7.2013, as a Peon. The contract period was extended from time to time, and his last extension was with effect from 11.1.2016, by Ext.P2 order. The 2nd petitioner was initially appointed with effect from 12.9.2011, as a Security Guard. His contract was also extended from time to time with the last extension being from 5.12.2015, as per Ext.P7 order. The 3rd petitioner was appointed as a Driver-cum- Attender, on contract basis, with effect from 24.7.2015, and his contract period has since expired during the pendency of the writ petition. The grievance of the petitioners in this writ petition is essentially that, while they have been granted an extension in the period of contract for one year from 11.1.2016, in the case of the 1st petitioner, and one year from 5.12.2015, in the case of the 2nd petitioner, by Exts.P3, P8 and P12 orders, the services of the 1st, 2nd W.P.(C).No.22546/2016 2 and 3rd petitioners were terminated with effect from 23.6.2016, much prior to the expiry of the term specified in the contract entered into with them. It is the case of the petitioners herein that, by Ext.P16 order dated 25.2.2016, the 2nd respondent had taken a decision to forward the proposal for regularisation of employees, who had completed three years of service, on contract basis, as on 5.2.2016, for regularisation in the services of the 2nd respondent, and a premature termination of the services of the petitioners would deprive them of the benefit contemplated in Ext.P16 order of the 2nd respondent. The petitioners therefore pray for a continuation of their services pursuant to an extension of the contract entered into with them by the 2nd respondent.
2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent, wherein, the stand taken is that, in the orders that were passed by the respondent, extending the contract tenure of the petitioners, it was clearly indicated that the extension of the tenure of the contract was to be for a period of one year or till alternate arrangements were made, whichever is earlier. It is stated, therefore, that inasmuch as the petitioners had accepted the said contract with W.P.(C).No.22546/2016 3 the specific term that enabled the 2nd respondent to terminate their services as and when alternate arrangements were made, the petitioners could not be heard to contend that their contract had to enure till the expiry of the period of one year from the date on which it was renewed. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that Ext.P16 order, which is relied upon by counsel for the petitioners, cannot be of much assistance to them, since, while the 1st and 3rd petitioners do not satisfy the eligibility requirement of completion of three years service prior to 5.2.2016 for the purposes of regularisation contemplated under the said order, inasmuch as the 2nd petitioner is concerned, although he has more than three years service prior to 5.2.2016, he has not been working against a post to which regularisation under Ext.P16 order is contemplated. It is stated, therefore, that none of the petitioners can aspire for the benefit of Ext.P16 order.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned Standing counsel for the 2nd respondent.
On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as W.P.(C).No.22546/2016 4 also the submissions made across the bar, I find that the basis of the services rendered by the petitioners, under the 2nd respondent, is the contract that was entered into between the petitioners, on the one hand, and the 2nd respondent on the other, from time to time. It is not in dispute that in the last executed contract, the terms and conditions specified that the extension of the contract period would be for a period of one year, or till alternate arrangements are made, whichever is earlier. It is also note in dispute that the services of the petitioners were terminated with effect from 23.6.2016, when the 2nd respondent found that there was no necessity to extend their services since the 2nd respondent decided, in terms of the Government policy, not to engage the petitioners for a fresh term. Inasmuch as the right of the petitioners to continued service under the 2nd respondent stems from a contract, the petitioners cannot contend for a continuity in service beyond the period mentioned in the contract. As a matter of fact, the petitioners would be estopped from taking a stand contrary to the specific terms of the contract [See State of Maharashtra and Others v. Anita and Another Etc. - [JT (2016) 7 SC 452)]. I also note that the petitioners cannot aspire for any benefit flowing from Ext.P16 order, since they have either not satisfied the conditions for W.P.(C).No.22546/2016 5 regularisation or for the reason that the posts in which they are working is not one that is contemplated for regularisation. Resultantly, I am of the view that the reliefs prayed for in the writ petition cannot be granted. The writ petition therefore fails, and is accordingly dismissed.
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE prp/23/8/16