Kerala High Court
Saija Rani. P vs State Of Kerala on 19 August, 2020
Author: P.V.Asha
Bench: P.V.Asha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA
WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 28TH SRAVANA, 1942
WP(C).No.25370 OF 2017(U)
PETITIONER:
SAIJA RANI. P
AGED 41 YEARS,
WIFE OF GIRISH KUMAR. T. P.,
PROJECT ASSOCIATE (STATISTICS),
NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AND RESEARCH CENTRE,
SASTHRA BHAVAN,
PATTOM PALACE P. O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004,
RESIDING AT PRASANTHI, TC 55/1100(1),
ANRA 29,
ANAND NAGAR, NEERAMANKARA,
KAIMANAM P. O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 040.
BY ADVS.
SRI. ASHOK B. SHENOY
SRI. K. V. GEORGE
SRI. P. S. GIREESH
SRI. P. N. RAJAGOPALAN NAIR
SRI. RIYAL DEVASSY
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
2 KERALA STATE COUNCIL FOR SCIENCE
TECHNOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT,
SASTHRA BHAVAN, PATTOM PALACE P. O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004.
3 NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AND
RESEARCH CENTRE
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR,
SASTHRA BHAVAN,
PATTOM PALACE P. O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004.
WP(C).No.25370 OF 2017
2
SRI. SUNIL KUMAR KURIAKOSE, GP
R1 & R2 - SRI. GEORGE ZACHARIAH, SC, KSCSTE
R1 & R3 - SRI. B. S. SYAMANTHAK, SC, NATPAC
R2 - SRI. P. C. SASIDHARAN, SC, KSCSTE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
19.08.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.25370 OF 2017
3
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 19th day of August 2020 The petitioner has been working as a Project Associate in the 3rd respondent Research Centre from 2009 onwards. The petitioner has stated that her appointment to the post was made after issuing employment notification inviting applications in the official website as also in various newspapers including The Hindu, daily. As petitioner is qualified with post graduation in Statistics she submitted her application and was included in the rank list and she was appointed as per Ext.P1 letter dated 26.08.2009, on contract basis for a period of one year or till the completion of the project, whichever is earlier. She was directed to execute an agreement.
2. The petitioner submits that she continued without any renewal of agreement till 2011 and thereafter she has WP(C).No.25370 OF 2017 4 been continuing on execution of agreements every year. While working so petitioner came to know that some of the candidates appointed similarly, on contract basis were being absorbed/regularised. The petitioner thereupon submitted Ext.P2 representation on 18.07.2011 requesting for her absorption against existing permanent vacancies. The petitioner stated that one Sri.Sanjai R. J, who was appointed in similar circumstances was regularised and he was appointed as Technical Officer Grade - I granting him relaxation from upper age limit and educational qualifications, as per Ext.P3 order dated 23.11.2013.
3. The petitioner therefore submitted another representation Ext.P4. It is stated that while so one Smt.Deepa Radhakrishnan was also regularised with effect from 16.04.2014 as a Technical Officer Grade - I. As there was no positive action in the case of the petitioner and the respondents issued a notification Ext.P8 on 20.07.2017 inviting applications for appointments to various posts including Project Associate, claiming regularisation/absorption against her post, she filed this writ petition. The petitioner WP(C).No.25370 OF 2017 5 alleged that denial of regularisation in her case while granting regularisation to several others appointed in identical circumstances is discriminatory.
4. The respondents have filed separate counter affidavits, according to which the reappointment of petitioner itself was illegal and contrary to law laid down in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) [2006 (4) SCC 1] : Renu & others v. District Sessions Judge Tishazari Court Delhi & Another [2014 (14) SCC 50] etc. It was stated that Sri.Sanjai R. J was regularised as per the directions from KSCSTE and Government ratified the same stating that it shall not be treated as a precedent. The respondents was also stated that the service of Smt.Deepa Radhakrishnan was also regularised in similar manner. The petitioner had in the meanwhile submitted a representation before the Government seeking for regularisation. Government directed the Member Secretary, to consider the said representation. The 3 rd respondent has also produced Ext.R3(a) order dated 13.09.2018 by which the request of the petitioner was rejected in the light of the judgment of Umadevi's case WP(C).No.25370 OF 2017 6 (supra). The petitioner was challenged the order also by way of amending the writ petition.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that Government has found in Ext.P5 that the petitioner does not have the qualification for appointment in Scientist category; at the same time there is a vacancy in the post of Technical Officer. It is stated that appointment to such post is to be made through Employment Exchange and that the petitioner is already over aged.
6. The learned counsel for the respondents stated that the representation of petitioner was rejected on the ground that petitioner has become over aged also apart from the judgment Umadevi's case (supra). According to the 3rd respondent Project Associate is a nomenclature for appointment on contract basis and that the petitioner was engaged purely on contract basis and that there is no requirement of a Project Associate and that the project in which she was engaged has ceased its function.
7. Having heard the learned Counsel on either side, it is seen that petitioner's appointment was made after inviting WP(C).No.25370 OF 2017 7 applications by issuing a notification published in leading dailies and after drawing a rank list and that the petitioner was having all the qualifications for appointment to the post of Project Associate. The 3rd respondent has admitted that some of the persons who were appointed along with petitioner have already been regularised in the post of Technical Officer Grade - I. Therefore it is only appropriate that petitioner is allowed to continue as long as the project is there. As the petitioner has been continuing in service from 2009 onwards and as her appointment was made after process of selection after giving opportunity to qualified hands it is only fair and proper, for the respondents to consider her case also, in case the respondents are absorbing/appointing candidate as Technical Officers, in case she is having the qualification for the same irrespective of her age .
The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue in service as long as a post for which she is qualified is available and to consider her case for appointment in posts under the 3 rd WP(C).No.25370 OF 2017 8 respondent for which she is qualified, granting her age relaxation to the extent of her service under the respondents.
Sd/-
P.V.ASHA JUDGE SPR WP(C).No.25370 OF 2017 9 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF APPOINTMENT LETTER NO.
103/TSD/NATPAC/2009 DATED 26.08.2009 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 18.07.2011 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER AND 4 OTHERS TO THE CHIEF MINISTER OF KERALA.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF G.O.(RT.)NO.
107/2015/S&TD DATED 23.11.2013 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 23.04.2013 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER TO THE CHIEF MINISTER OF KERALA.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.
1477/C6/2013/KSTE COUNCIL DATED 29.08.2014 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.
7632/RIA/2017/NATPAC DATED 07.03.2017 ISSUED BY PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER OF 3RD RESPONDENT TO MR. JOY.J. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 08.09.2016 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER TO THE CHIEF MINISTER OF KERALA.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION NO.
7776/GAI/2017/NATPAC DATED 20.07.2017 PUBLISHED BY 3RD RESPONDENT ON THEIR OFFICIAL WEBSITE.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.618/C1/2017 KSTE COUNCIL DATED 20.02.2017 ISSUED BY PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER OF 2ND RESPONDENT TO MR.JOY.J. WP(C).No.25370 OF 2017 10 EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.
G329/KFRI/ESTT/06 DATED 10.03.2017 ISSUED BY PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER OF KERALA FOREST RESEARCH INSTITUTE TO MR.JOY.J. EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.
91/AIO/2017/JNTBGRI DATED 14.03.2017 ISSUED BY PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER OF JAWAHARLAL NEHRU TROPICAL BOTANIC GARDEN AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE TO MR.JOY.J. RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R3(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13.09.2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.