Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 2]

Kerala High Court

P.Unnikrishnan And Others vs State Of Kerala And Others on 10 March, 2010

Bench: K.Balakrishnan Nair, P.N.Ravindran

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WA.No. 430 of 2010()



1. P.UNNIKRISHNAN AND OTHERS
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.SREEDHARAN NAIR

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN

 Dated :10/03/2010

 O R D E R
        K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ.
               ----------------------------------------------
                      W.A. No.430 of 2010
               ----------------------------------------------
                     Dated 10th March, 2010.

                           J U D G M E N T

Balakrishnan Nair, J.

The writ petitioners are the appellants. They were appointed as Security Guards, on daily wage basis, in the Land Revenue Commissionerate. They were sponsored by the Zila Sainik Welfare Board. They were appointed on 3.3.1999, 6.11.1999, 26.6.1999 and 6.11.2004 respectively. According to the appellants, as per Ext.P2, some of the Security Guards appointed in the Administrative Secretariat were regularised. Claiming the said relief, they moved the Government. The Government, by Ext.P4 order dated 12.2.2008, not only declined to regularise them, but, ordered their termination and also directed to report the vacancies to the Public Service Commission. Thereafter, the appellants moved the Chief Minister, by filing Ext.P5 representation. As per the direction of this Court in Ext.P6 judgment, the said representation was WA NO.430/10 2 considered and rejected by Ext.P7. Challenging Exts.P4 and P7, the Writ Petition was filed. The learned Single Judge declined to interfere with those orders. Therefore, the appellants have preferred this Writ Appeal.

2. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that they are entitled to get the benefit of the decision of the Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi & Others (2006(4) SCC 1). But, we notice that the appellants do not have ten years' service as on the date of rendering of the said judgment, by the Apex Court. The learned counsel for the appellants pointed out that they are entitled to get a treatment, similar to the one extended to those Security Guards appointed in the Administrative Secretariat, by Ext.P2.

3. We notice that Ext.P2 order, apparently, is one issued under Rule 39 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, relaxing the rigour of the rule that first appointment to public services should be on the advice of the Public Service Commission. The appellants do not have a legal right to claim the said relief and the respondents do not owe any WA NO.430/10 3 duty to them, in this regard. For the sake of satisfying the requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot direct the Government to act repeatedly in derogation of the rules. The Writ Appeal, therefore, fails and it is, accordingly, dismissed.

K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE.

P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE.

tgs K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ.

---------------------------------------------- W.A. No.430 of 2010

----------------------------------------------

J U D G M E N T Dated 10th March, 2010.