IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 11TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 20TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 33242 of 2008(R) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- SATHYAN.P. S/O.CHANDU, CHOOTTAKKAT HOUSE, ECHIKKANAM POST, AMBALATHUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DIST. (PEON, PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF'S COURT, KASARAGOD). BY ADV. SRI.KODOTH SREEDHARAN. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT JUDGE, KASARAGOD. 3. THE REGISTRAR,(SUBORDINATE JUDICIARY) HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P. NANDAKUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/11/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.33242 of 2008 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 11th day of November, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is presently working as Peon in the Court of the Principal Munsiff of Kasaragod. He was appointed as Peon on a temporary basis under Rule 9(a) (i) of Part-II of the KS & SSR, 1958 for a period of 179/180 days or till a regular hand joins duty, whichever is earlier, by Ext.P2 order dated 19/05/2008. The period for which the petitioner was appointed is to expire shortly. In this writ petition, the petitioner prays for a declaration that he is entitled to be regularized in service. He also seeks a direction to the State of Kerala to dispose of Ext.P4 representation, wherein he has claimed continuance in service. 2. A Full Bench of this Court has in Radha Vs. District Medical Officer ( 2002(2) KLT 711), held that provisional employees appointed under Rule 9(a)(i) have no right to continue in service beyond the term for which they WP(C) No.33242/2008 -2- were appointed or seek regularization. The 9th proviso to Rule 9(a)(i) of Part-II of the KS&SSR also prohibits such continuance or regularization. In these circumstances, the petitioner cannot claim continuance in service or seek regularization. The reliefs prayed for by the petitioner cannot therefore be granted. The writ petition fails, and is accordingly dismissed. (P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE) jg