IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND JULY 2008 / 11TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 18552 of 2008(H) ----------------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------------- P.M.VINODLAL, 37 YEARS S/O.PURUSHOTHAMAN, THOPPIL HOUSE KAZHIVOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY ADV. SRI.R.SUDHISH RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. KSRTC, REP. BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSRTC, TRIVANDRUM BY SHRI JOHNSON P. JOHN, SC, KSRTC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 18552 OF 2008 H -------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd July, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to dispose of Ext.P6 and for a further direction to the respondents to appoint him as Overseer on contractual basis on the basis of the observation in Ext.P1 Judgment. 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: Petitioner was appointed as an Overseer in the respondent Corporation for a period of one year on contract basis in the year 2005. It was renewed twice for one month each. Thereafter, by the decision taken on 18.2.2007, the service of the petitioner was terminated from the KSRTC. Petitioner challenged the termination by filing W.P.(C). No.11902/07. That Writ Petition was dismissed. But, the Court made an observation that the dismissal of the Writ Petition may not stand in the way of the petitioner to seek further engagement in future and it is also observed that the Court did not find any reason why the WPC. 18552/08 H 2 Corporation would not consider the request that may be made by the petitioner to engage him as Overseer if occasion arises. According to petitioner, after disposal of the Writ Petition by Ext.P1 judgment, petitioner noticed an advertisement in Ext.P2 calling for applications for appointment of Project Engineer, Assistant Engineer and two Overseers on contractual basis for construction of shopping complex at Kattakkada and Kottarakkara Depots. Petitioner applied and despite Ext.P1 Judgment, he was not considered. Thereafter the petitioner applied before the respondent Corporation for appointment as Overseer at the Kasaragod Depot. After scrutiny, he was called for interview as evident from Ext.P3 call letter. Petitioner and one Smt. Vanaja were selected for one year (Ext.P4). However, the respondents clandestinely withheld the appointment and appointed one Shri V. Anilkumar as permanent Overseer who was shifted to Kasaragod. There being temporary vacancies of Overseer in various Depots, petitioner made Ext.P5 application to the Minister and Ext.P6 representation to the second WPC. 18552/08 H 3 respondent, Managing Director. 3. A Counter Affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents, inter alia, stating that the Corporation requires the services of Project Engineer only for the proposed shopping complex at kottarakara and Kattakada and no one was appointed as Overseer as per the Notification. It is also stated that Shri Anilkumar was a permanent employee working at Kozhikode and the Corporation has every right to transfer its employee wherever his service is required. It is further stated as follows: "There are directions from the Government to fill up all vacancies through the Kerala Public Service Commission or Employment Exchange. So, it is not possible to fill up the vacancy other than the recruitment agency." It is stated that the petitioner is technically qualified and he has experience in the field. Counsel for petitioner also points out that the petitioner is also registered in the Employment Exchange. 4. I heard Shri R. Sudhish, learned counsel appearing for WPC. 18552/08 H 4 the petitioner. As far as the observations of the High Court are concerned, certainly I do not think that it could be understood as the petitioner having been clothed with a legal right to seek appointment. The appointment made of Shri Anilkumar is also not challenged in this Writ Petition. I do not think that the petitioner has made out a legal right to the relief sought for and the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly I dismiss the Writ Petition. However, I make it clear that this will not stand in the way of the petitioner being considered for appointment in accordance with law on the basis of his being registered with the Employment Exchange. Sd/= K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy// PS to Judge