IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 15771 of 2006(C) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. SAJEEV.R.S. S/O.RAVEENDRAN PILLAI, AGED 32, SANTHI BHAVANAM, VALAKOM, ANDOOR P.O. KOLLAM DISTRICT.WORKING AS PROJECT SCIENTIST, REGIONAL OFFICE KERALA STATE LAND USE BOARD, TRISSUR. 2. AJI.S. S/O.M.SIVAM, AGED 33, RAMA COTTAGE, MACHEAL P.O. MALAYANKEZHU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM WORKING AS PROJECT SCIENTIST REGIONAL OFFICE, KERALA STATE LAND UNSE BOARD, TRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, PLANNING AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS, STATE OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF KERALA STATE LAND USE BOARD, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. S.KUMARESAN, TC 41/616, AYYAPPAN BHAVAN, PUTHENKOTTAI, THYCAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 009. 5. M.V.SASILAL, MANAPPALLY HOUSE, PONATHISSERI, IRINJALAKUDA, NORTH P.O. THRISSUR 680 125. tss W.P.(C) NO 15771/2006 6. JAGADEESH BABU, KURUPPATH HOUSE, KALLEPPULLY P.O. PALAKKAD 678 005. 7. BALU JACOB, TC 30/1436, LAVANYA, CHAKKAI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 024. 8. K.ALTHAF HYDARI, TC 30/414, ANAYARA P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 029. 9. G.SUBRAMANIAN, RAJ VIHAR, KALLAMPALLY, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 011. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.NOABLE MATHEW R4 TO R9 BY ADVS. SRI.K.JAJU BABU, SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI, SMT.DHANYA CHANDRAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss W.P.(C) NO.15771/2006 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE ORDER GO(RT) 329/98 DT.D 21.8.98. P2:- COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER E-1033/98/LUIB DTD 8.1.99 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P3:- COPY OF THE SERVICE EXTENSION ORDER DTD. 12.1.2006. P4:- COPY OF THE SERVICE EXTENSION ORDER DTD. 4.7.05. P5:- COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DTD. 26.3.1999. P6:- COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DTD. 23.4.1999 OF THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE LAND USE BOARD. P7:- COPY OF THE SERVICE REGULARISATION ORDER GO(MS) 53/05/PLG. DTD. 25.8.2005. P8:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 5.9.05 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P9:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 2.9.05 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P10:- COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 10.10.05 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P11:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 14.2.2006 OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA. P12:- COPY OF THE ORDER GO(RT) 219/2006/PLG. DTD. 14.6.2006. P13:- COPY OF THE GL(MS) 56/05/PLG. DTD. 27.8.05. P14:- COPY OF THE LETTER DT.D 13.3.2009 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. P15:- COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 9.11.2010 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO 2ND RESPONDENT. P16:- COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) 08/11/PLG. DTD.. 12.3.11 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT STATE. P17:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT.D 12.10.2011 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. tss W.P.(C) NO.15771/2006 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS R5(a):- COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER 31/6(IB) CESS/96 DTD. 30.10.1996. R5(b):- COPY OF THE ORDER G.O.(RT0 329/08 PLG. DTD. 21.8.1998. R5(c):- COPY OF THE ORDER T-840(1) /98/LUB DTD. 13.10.1998. R5(d):- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.GO(RT) 52/99/PLG. DT.D 2.2.1999. R5(e):- COPY OF THE LETTER NO.E-1875/2000/LUB DT. 18.1.2001. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.15771 of 2006 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioners are working as Scientists under the 3rd respondent Kerala State Land Use Board, since 29.12.1998 on contract basis. Their contract appointment is being extended from time to time. According to the petitioners, respondents 4 to 9 were appointed subsequent to the appointment of the petitioners. They also were appointed on contract basis. The petitioners and respondents 4 to 9 are doing identical jobs. According to the petitioners, the petitioners alone have the requisite qualifications for the post. But the 1st respondent regularised the services of respondents 4 to 9 discriminating the petitioners. The 3rd respondent recommended to the Government for regularisation of the service of the petitioners. Since the petitioners were not given the same benefit as given to respondents 4 to 9, the petitioners approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.4347/2006. This Court by Ext.P11 order W.P.(C)No.15771/06 2 directed consideration of the petitioners' representation in that regard. Pursuant thereto, Ext.P12 order has been passed by the 2nd respondent holding that since the petitioners were appointed purely on contract basis, as per the existing rules, such contract appointments cannot be regularised. The petitioners are challenging Ext.P12 order, seeking the following reliefs: “(i) Call for the records leading to Ext.P12 and quash the same by issue of a writ of certiorari or other writ order or direction. (ii) issue a writ of mandamus or other writ order or direction compelling respondents 1 and 2 to regularise the petitioner (sic) in pursuance of Ext.P10 and give seniority above petitioners. (iii) issue a writ of prohibition or other writ order or direction prohibiting the respondents 1 to 3 from terminating the services of petitioners under 3rd respondent.” 2. The petitioners contend that, while regularising the services of respondents 4 to 9, the Government had no such objection, although respondents 4 to 9 were also appointed on contract basis. As such, the attitude of the Government is discriminatory and violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioners under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India is the submission. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent, wherein they support Ext.P12 order on the same W.P.(C)No.15771/06 3 reasons stated in Ext.P12. The learned Government Pleader would point out that as stated in paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit, regularisation of respondents 4 to 9 was ordered by the Government as a very special case and it was stipulated in the order that the same may not be quoted as a precedent. Therefore, according to the learned Government Pleader, the petitioners cannot rely on the regularisation granted to respondents 4 to 9 as a precedent for claiming regualarisation of their service. 4. Respondents 4 to 9 filed W.P.(C) No.26113/09 seeking follow up action pursuant to the order directing regularisation of their service. I have disposed of that writ petition today in view Ext.P17 order in this writ petition, whereby the Government had finally regularised their services. The learned counsel for respondents 4 to 9 submits that their services were regularised considering their longer service in the department. 5. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. In Ext.P12, the petitioners' claim for regularisation has been rejected on the ground that their appointment was purely on contract basis and the existing rules do not allow regularisation W.P.(C)No.15771/06 4 of contract appointments. At the same time, in Ext.P17 order, it is specifically stated that respondents 4 to 9 were also working on contract basis and they are absorbed with prospective effect against the supernumerary posts of Geological Assistants created in the department. As such Exts.P12 and P17 are contradictory. Of course, the learned Government Pleader would contend that the case of respondents 4 to 9 is a special case, which cannot be treated as a precedent. But, neither in the counter affidavit nor in the impugned order or in Ext.P17 it is stated as to how the case of respondents 4 to 9 is a special case. No reasons whatsoever have been stated as to why the petitioners are to be treated differently from respondents 4 to 9 in the matter of regularisation in service. The Government cannot blow hot and cold. They cannot reject the claim of the petitioners for regularisation on the ground that they have been appointed on contract basis and at the same time, regularise the service of other persons employed on contract basis. They cannot simply justify the same by saying that the regularisation of respondents 4 to 9 is a special case and it shall not be treated as a precedent. Articles 14 and 16 do not permit the W.P.(C)No.15771/06 5 Government to discriminate between two sets of persons by stating that the case of one set is treated as a special case and shall not be a precedent for others. Insofar as the petitioners and respondents 4 to 9 stand on the same footing, as far as their service conditions are concerned, I am of opinion that the petitioners are entitled to the same benefit given to respondents 4 to 9. Therefore, they are also entitled to regularisation in service just like respondents 4 to 9. Therefore, I direct the respondents 1 to 3 to see that the service of the petitioners are also regularised as done in the case of respondents 4 to 9 in Ext.P17 order. Orders in this regard shall be passed and the service of the petitioners shall be regaurlised, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If necessary, for accommodating the petitioners as done in the case of respondents 4 to 9, appropriate posts shall be created. The writ petition is disposed of as above. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE W.P.(C)No.15771/06 6 acd W.P.(C)No.15771/06 7