IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 7TH AUGUST 2008 / 16TH SRAVANA 1930 WA.No. 1611 of 2008 --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.31263/2007 Dated 12/11/2007 .................... APPELLANT: APPELLANT -------------------------- M.S.SUNIL KUMAR, MALIEKAL HOUSE, KIZHUTHANY, THANISSERY P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680701. BY ADV. SRI.BLAZE K.JOSE SRI.K.K.SUNIL KUMAR (IDUKKI) RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. R1 BY ADV. SRI K. SANDESH RAJA R2 BY ADV. SRI M.K. CHANDRAMOHANDAS, STANDING COUNSEL THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B. KOSHY & K.P. BALACHANDRAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------------------------- Writ Appeal No 1611 of 2008 -------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th August 2008 JUDGMENT Koshy,J. Appellant-petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Engineer pursuant to a notification issued by the Pollution Control Board in the year 1994. He was No. 28 in the rank list published. But the Government decided to cancel the above rank list so that appointments can be made through Public Service Commission. One of the rank holders approached this court and a Division Bench of this court by Ext. P1 judgment directed the rank holders to be appointed provisionally with a specific rider that the appointees would not get any right to the post or right to get regularisation in the post. But such appointments would continue till regular appointments are made through Public Service Commission. Accordingly appellant-petitioner was appointed by Ext. P2 order dated16.08.1996. He joined duty on 03.09.1996 and applied for leave without allowance on medical grounds for 45 days. By Ext P3 leave was granted from 14.11.1996 to WA 1611/08 2 28.12.1996. He did not join duty after the above period. By Ext P4 letter of application dated 21.12.1996 he applied for leave not overdue for a period of two years from 30.12.1996. That was not granted since he was not eligible for the leave applied for. However, he applied for leave for a further period of three years with effect from the middle of January 1999. He was not eligible for leave without allowances beyond 90 days. His services were therefore terminated by order dated 06.03.1999 for unauthorised absence as none of his leave was granted. Thereafter on 12.01.2000 appellant made a representation. Meanwhile, Government after considering the judgment of the Division Bench and the request of the Provisional Employees Association issued orders regularising the provisional employees in different categories who were in the service of the Board as on the date of judgment. All persons provisionally appointed as per Ext. P1 judgment were therefore regularised except the appellant whose service was already terminated. Appellant approached this court by filing O.P. No 30169 of 2002 which was disposed of directing the Board to consider the representation filed by him. The Board considered the representation and by Ext P10 order rejected his request for appointment in the Board. Again WA 1611/08 3 appellant made Ext P11 representation and thereafter approached this court by filing W.P.(C) No 34796 of 2005. By Ext P12 judgment learned single judge of this court directed reconsideration of the matter by the Government. Government by Ext P13 reconsidered the matter and rejected the request. It is contended that had the appellant been given regular appointment he would not have gone on leave to take up employment abroad. We are unable to accept the contention. Appellant on the basis of his inclusion in the rank list was given provisional appointment pursuant to Ext P1 judgment, but immediately after joining the service he went on leave on medical grounds which was sought to be extended on two occasions for taking up employment abroad and his service was terminated in 1999. Though he made representation he lost his chance for employment and he is not entitled to be included in the list of persons sought to be regularised as he was not in employment when regularisation was made. He approached this court for reconsideration of the matter by the Government. This court directed reconsideration by the Government as per Ext P12 and the Government correctly held that the appellant is not entitled to get regularisation. The above order was upheld by the learned single WA 1611/08 4 judge. We fully endorse the view of the learned single judge. We therefore see no ground to interfere. The appeal is dismissed. Sd/- J.B. KOSHY Judge Sd/- K.P. BALACHANDRAN Judge 07/08/2008 en [true copy]