Kerala High Court
Priya vs State Of Kerala on 9 April, 2021
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF APRIL 2021 / 19TH CHAITHRA, 1943
WP(C).No.2183 OF 2020(W)
PETITIONER:
PRIYA, W/O.KRISHNAN A., R/AT BETHOORPARA HOUSE,
VATTAMTHATTA P.O., MULIYAR (VIA),
KASARAGOD DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.KODOTH SREEDHARAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PLANNING AND ECONOMICS
AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-690001.
2 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF STATISTICS AND PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION
DEPARTMENT, SARDAR PATEL BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110001.
3 DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
KASARAGOD -671121.
4 RAJMOHAN UNNITHAN, MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT,
KASARAGOD -671121 (CORRECTED)
RAJMOHAN UNNITHAN (IN HIS PERSONAL CAPACITY OCCUPYING
THE SEAT OF THE MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT, KASARAGOD - 671
121) RESIDING AT NANDAVANAM, AINGOTH P.O., KANHANGAD,
HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD - 671 315.
(CAUSE TITLE OF R4 IS CORRECTED AS PER ORDER DATED
10/02/2020 IN I.A.NO.1/2020.)
BY ADVS.
KUM.S.KRISHNA
SRI.T.ASAFALI
SRI.SUNIL KUMAR KURIAKOSE -GP.
SRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR - ASGI
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
09.04.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WPC 2183/20
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner says that she was working as a Data Entry Operator at the Nodal Centre of the District Head Quarters at Kasaragod, under the aegis of a scheme framed by the Central Government, namely 'Members of the Parliament Local Area Development Scheme' (MPLADS).
2. The petitioner says that she was appointed after a written test and interview and that even though she was given extensions periodically, she has been now issued with Ext.P4 order dated 27.12.2019, terminating her services saying that 'a Data Entry Operator is not necessary in the facilitation centre in the present circumstances' (sic). She says that Ext.P4 is egregiously improper, since this permits the District Collector to hire and fire persons at his whim and that she has WPC 2183/20 3 been now terminated only to accommodate another person on a contractual basis.
3. The petitioner contends that it has been well-settled by the judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court in various cases, that a contractual employment cannot be normally terminated to provide for another contractual appointee. She, therefore, prays that Ext.P4 be set aside and the District Collector-Kasaragod be directed to reinstate her in service forthwith.
4. I have heard Sri.Kodoth Sreedharan - learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Sunil Kumar Kuriakose - learned Government Pleader.
5. The learned Government Pleader submitted that Ext.P4 is not a stigmatic termination, as far as the petitioner is concerned and that her services have been found unnecessary in the present WPC 2183/20 4 circumstances. He submitted that this is because on account of the Covid-19 pandemic disruptions, the Government of India had issued a communication dated 08.04.2020 to all Nodal Secretaries of States and Union Territories that there will be no further release of instalments for the MPLADS for two years, namely during the financial years 2020- 21 and 2021-22, into the account of the Nodal District Authorities. He submitted that, therefore, there was no other option for the District Collector, but to terminate the services of the petitioner, since she had no work to be engaged with and there being no funds to pay her.
6. After saying as afore, the learned Government Pleader vehemently refuted the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that his client was being terminated solely to accommodate another WPC 2183/20 5 person, asserting that there was no such proposal and that the post of Data Entry Operator is still vacant. He, therefore, prayed that this Writ Petition be dismissed.
7. When I evaluate the afore submissions, it is evident that the petitioner was appointed through Ext.P2 on 14.11.2019 only on contract basis and it has been made unequivocally clear therein that her contract will terminate on completion of one year from the date of her joining duty or on the date on which her services are terminated. The petitioner was fully aware that her engagement at the Common Felicitation Centre was on contract basis, as is manifest from Ext.P2; and obviously, therefore, she cannot now turn around and say that she had accepted the engagement thinking that she will be granted automatic extensions of contract, on expiry of her initial term.
WPC 2183/206
8. That said, however, there is some force in the submissions of Sri.Kodoth Sreedharan that Ext.P4 cannot be issued by the District Collector so as to terminate the petitioner and to accommodate another person in her place. If this is the intent of Ext.P4 then certainly, it cannot be found favour with this Court, because this will promote an action of hire and fire, which is proscribed through the various judgments of this Court and that of the Honourable Supreme Court.
9. That said, as seen above, the learned Government Pleader asserts that the petitioner has not been terminated so as to accommodate another person and that the post in question is still vacant. He maintains that it is only after the financial year 2020-21 that there will be further inflow of funds into the MPLADS and that it is only consequent thereto, that any appointment can be made. I also WPC 2183/20 7 record that he added that if this Court is so inclined, the petitioner will also be considered for contractual employment at that time, along with others and that her prior experience will be reckoned for such purpose.
10. On hearing the learned Government Pleader as afore, Sri.Kodoth Sreedharan submitted that since the District Collector now maintains that no person has been appointed in the place of Data Entry Operator, his client is willing to accede to the suggestion as afore and to wait until fresh appointments are made, after the financial year 2021-22 or earlier, as per the instructions of the Government of India. He, however, prayed that his client be given the benefit of being considered on priority, taking note of her earlier experience. He added that he is making this request because, even as per Ext.P4, no complaints have been WPC 2183/20 8 raised against his client and that she was terminated solely saying that there was no work for a Data Entry Operator under the Scheme as of now.
11. The afore request of Sri.Kodoth Sreedharan certainly appeals to me and am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to be considered as and when fresh appointments are proposed by the competent Authority under the MPLADS, for which purpose, she must get some priority based on her prior experience.
Resultantly, I order this writ petition, but without acceding to the prayers made by the petitioner; however, directing the 3rd respondent-District Collector to ensure that as and when the post in question is sought to be filled up on contract or through other methods, the petitioner will also be given an opportunity of being considered; and in such event, eligible priority will be given to her, WPC 2183/20 9 taking note of her earlier experience in the post.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
RR JUDGE
WPC 2183/20
10
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION ISSUED
TO THE PETITIONER DATED 2.11.2019. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF APPOINTMENT DATED 14.11.2019.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST MADE BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR IN THIS REGARD DATED 19.8.2018.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF TERMINATION BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR DATED 27.12.2019.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 06.01.2020 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 12.7.2018 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.