IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 30TH MAY 2008 / 9TH JYAISHTA 1930 OP.No. 24379 of 2002(B) ----------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ A.P. ASHAKOSH, PLAVILA VEEDU, ANTHIYOORKONAM, KOLLOOR P.O., MALAYINKEEZHU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.N.DHARMADAN (SR.) SRI.ARAVINDA KUMAR BABU T.K. RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE ADDL.CHIEF SECRETARY, CULTURAL AFFAIRS (C) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE INSTITUTE OF LANGUAGES AND VIJANAMUDRANAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, NALANDA, NANDANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DIRECTOR OF STATE INSTITUTE OF LANGUAGES, NALANDA, NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADDL. 4. SMT. K.O. PADMAKUMARI, BINDER, STATE INSTITUTE OF LANGUAGE AND VIJNANAMUDRANAM PRESS, NALANDA, NANDANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADDL. 5. SRI. B. UDAYAMOHAN, LASCAR OF DO.DO. ADDL. 6. SRI. S. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, LASCAR OF DO.DO. ADDL. 7. SMT. SUSU BENSON, TIME KEEPER OF DO.DO. ADDL. 8. SRI. S. PRASADCHANDRAN NAIR, PEON, STATE INSTITUTE OF LANGUAGES, NALANDA, NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADDL.9. SRI. S. SULAIMAN, PEON-CUM-PACKER OF DO.DO. ADDL.10. SMT. D. SUSEELA, SWEEPER OF DO.DO. ADDL. R4 TO R10 ARE IMPLEADED AS SUCH AS PER ORDER DATED 21.8.2003 IN I.A. NO.10202 OF 2003. 2 R1 BY G.P. SMT. SMITHA R2 AND R3 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM R5 TO R10 BY ADVS. SMT.AYSHA YOUSEFF SMT.MOLLY JACOB SRI.T.K.MOHAMMED SHARAFUDHEERN SRI.RAFFEEKH.K BY ADV. SRI.V.R.GOPU FOR ADDL.R4 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.VIJAYAMOHANAN FOR R2 & 3 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 3 ORDER ON CMP 41279 OF 2002 IN OP 24379 OF 2002 DISMISSED 30.5.2008 SD/-C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF SNOTIFICATION DATED 30.3.95 BY THIRD RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP 574 OF 1996 DATED 30.10.2001 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP 3172 OF 2000 DATED 30.10.2001 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 7.6.2002 BY GOVERNMENT. EXT.P5 TRUE EXTRACT OF MINUTES DATED 5.10.2001 BY RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 8.5.2003 ISSUED BY THIRD RESPONDENT. EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN OP 18530 OF 2002 DATED 5.7.2002 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF THEREFERENCE ORDER IN OP 3712 OF 2000 DATED 31.7.2001 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. RESPONDENTS 2 & 3'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R2(a) TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO. E 10-364/96/SIL DATED 11.4.1996 EXT.R2(b) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP 4006 OF 1996 DATED 30.10.2001 4TH RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R4(a) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF 3RD RESPONDENT NO. VI-190/96/SIL DATED 3.4.1996 EXT.R4(b) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. E1/1028/2003/SIL DATED 11.7.2003 EXT.R4(c) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. E1/2973/1994/SIL DATED 30.10.2001 RESPONDENTS 5 TO 7 & 9'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R5(a) PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 3.4.96 IN OP 10264 OF 1994 EXT.R5(b) PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 9.4.96 IN CMP 974/96 ;IN OP 574/96 EXT.R5(c) PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 5.7.2002 IN OP 18530 OF 2002 TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------- O.P. NO. 24379 OF 2002 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of May, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is challenging the regularisation of respondents 4 to 10 in the service of respondents 2 and 3. Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that there was earlier round of litigation regarding regularisation of service of these respondents and this Court vide Exts.P2 and P3 judgments closed the O.Ps. as infructuous because of the statement of counsel appearing for the parties that Managing Committee of third respondent vide their decision taken on 5.10.2001 decided to terminate the services of all temporary and contract employees. In the first place, it is clear from Ext.P2 judgment in O.P.No.574 of 1996 that the challenge was against appointment of class IV employees whereas fourth respondent was appointed as class III employee and her service was regularised on 11.1.1996. The challenge against her appointment and regularisation was dismissed today by me vide judgment in WPC 25090 of 2004. So far as other respondents are concerned, the position is nsot different because the 2 decision taken on 5.10.2001 was to terminate the service of 13 persons who had temporary and contract employment with the third respondent. However, the services of respondents 5 to 10 were regularised along with others in the decision of the Managing committee of the third respondent taken on 11.1.1996. It is seen that regularisation of service was made pursuant to interim order of this Court in CMP 974 of 1996 in OP 574 of 1996 issued on 9.4.1996, produced as Ext.R5(b) in this O.P. It is seen that respsondents 5 to 10 were not impleaded as respondents in that O.P. and respondents after filing impleading petition sought for vacation of the interim order, which was allowed by this Court. Strangely, petitioners who filed the said O.P. had no objection against regularisation of service of employees in 1996. The present O.P. is filed by another person in 2002 contesting the regularisation of service of respondents made on 11.1.1996. Even though senior counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that regularisation of service of respondents 5 to 10 is not in accordance with rules, I do not propose to go into the same, as the O.P. has to be rejected on the ground of delay itself. Admittedly respsondents 5 to 10 3 along with others were regularised on 11.1.1996 and the petitioner has chosen to challenge the same only after six years of regularisation of their service. It is reported that respondents were appointed from 1989 on temporary basis and there is no scope for interfering with the appointment made several years back and regularised on 11.1.1996. O.P. is therefore dismissed as devoid of any merit. (C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge kk 4