Kerala High Court
Biju Mathew vs Kerala State Sports Council on 3 February, 2011
Author: T.R.Ramachandran Nair
Bench: T.R.Ramachandran Nair
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 1815 of 2011(B)
1. BIJU MATHEW, S/O.K.J.MATHEW,
... Petitioner
2. JAYAKUMAR.R,
Vs
1. KERALA STATE SPORTS COUNCIL,
... Respondent
2. THE SECRETARY,
3. STATE OF KERALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.)
For Respondent :PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHEER,SC,SPORTS COUN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :03/02/2011
O R D E R
T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
W.P.(C). No.1815/2011-B
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2011
J U D G M E N T
The petitioners herein are working as Coaches. They were appointed on contract basis by the first respondent-Kerala State Sports Council. The first petitioner was appointed as the Coach in Volleyball and the second petitioner as the Coach in Athletics. Initially, they were working as such in the respective field on daily wage basis as evident from Exts.P1 and P2. The appointment was for 179 days at a stretch which was renewed from time to time. Later, the contract period was extended by one year as per Ext.P5 order dated 14/06/2010. According to them, there was a decision taken to regularise them but later, by Ext.P6, an invitation was issued inviting applications for Coaches in various disciplines. It is averred in paragraph (4) of the writ petition that the petitioners were also applicants as per the said notification and after conducting written test, physical test, practical test and interview a ranked list was published. Therein, the first petitioner's rank is No.15 and the W.P.(C). No.1815/2011 -:2:- second petitioner's rank is No.19. It is further pointed out that a decision was taken by the Standing Committee of the Sports Council as per Ext.P8 to give some preference to those Coaches who have got outstanding service while serving as contract employees continuously for four years on the date of publication of the notification. The petitioners approached this Court contending that the disengagement of the petitioners as per Ext.P9 is unjustified in the light of the above decision.
2. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the Sports Council. They have filed a statement also in the matter. Going by paragraphs (17) to (20) of the statement, it can be seen that the decision to terminate them was taken in the light of various directions issued by this Court in different writ petitions, W.P.(C).Nos.662/10 and 19650/2010 and others. The service of 62 temporary Coaches on contract basis was terminated from 03/01/2011 and taking into account the vacancy position, 62 candidates were offered appointment in various disciplines as per W.P.(C). No.1815/2011 -:3:- the ranked list. Out of the selected candidates who were offered appointment, 55 candidates have already reported for duty.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the benefits available to the petitioners as per Ext.P8 decision may be directed to be considered by the first respondent.
4. I am not considering anything on the merits of the matter in the light of the fact that the petitioners are proposing to file appropriate representations. If the petitioners file appropriate representations by relying upon the decision in Ext.P8, the same will be considered by the first respondent in accordance with the rules, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of one month. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs.
Sd/-
(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms \\TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE