IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 15TH DECEMBER 2009 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 25877 of 2008(E) -------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. P.UNNIKRISHNAN NAIR,SECURITY GUARD/NIGHT DUTY WATCHMAN,LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONERATE, PUBLIC OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. S.A. SATHI, SECURITY GUARD/NIGHT DUTY WATCHMAN,LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONERATE, PUBLIC OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. P.KAMALASANAN NADAR, SECURITY GUARD/NIGHT DUTY WATCHMAN, LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONERATE, PUBLIC OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. N.SURENDRAN, SECURITY GUARD/NIGHT DUTY WATCHMAN, LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONERATE, PUBLIC OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. MR.PIRAPPANCODE V.SREEDHARAN NAIR, MR.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. ANTONY MUKATH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/12/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.25877/2008-E: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.LR(M)1-8811/98 DTD. 03/03/1999 OF THE R.3. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE G.O.(MS).NO.114/05/P&ARD DTD. 08/04/2005. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT LETTER NO. 90559/T2/03/RD DTD. 09/06/2004. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT LETTER NO. 29789/T2/06/RD DTD. 12/02/2008. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 21/02/2008 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE HON'BLE CHIEF MINISTER OF KERALA. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 14/03/2008 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C). NO.8708/08. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE G.O.(RT).NO.2045/08/RD. DTD. 19/06/2008. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.25877 OF 2008 (E) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioners are Ex-servicemen. They are sponsored by Zila Sainik Welfare Board and were appointed on daily wages as Security Guards in the Land Revenue Commissionerate. 2. It is stated that they were appointed on 3.3.1999, 6.11.1999, 26.6.1999 and 6.11.2004 respectively. According to the petitioners ex-servicemen who were similarly engaged in the Government Secretariat were regularized by Ext.P2 order dated 8.4.2005. Claiming that they are similarly situated, petitioners represented for regularization in Government service. However, they were ordered to be terminated and the vacancies were directed to be reported to the PSC. At that stage, they again approached the Chief Minister by filing Ext.P5. Thereafter they approached this court by filing WP(c).No.8708/08. That writ petitions was disposed of by Ext.P6 judgment directing the first respondent to consider Ext.P5. Accordingly, the claim was considered and Ext.P7 order was issued. It is challenging Ext.P7 order that this writ petition is filed. WPC.No.25877 /08 :2 : 3. Counsel contends that since the similarly situated daily waged Night watchmen /Security Guards in the Government Secretariat were regularized by Ext.P2, similar benefit of regularization should be extended to the petitioners also. 4. However, both in Ext.P7 and in the counter affidavit, the attempt of the respondents is to state that the case dealt with in Ext.P2, regularizing the service of the employees in the Government Secretariat stands on different footing and is not comparable to that of the petitioners. However, there is no explanation as to why they say so. 5. Be that as it may, admittedly, the post in question is one which is left within the purview of the PSC. If so, any regular appointment to the post can only be from the ranked list prepared by the PSC. In such a situation, the employees like the petitioners who rendered service on daily wages cannot claim regularization and thus gain entry into public service through back door, denying opportunities to the similarly situated unemployed youth of this State. The Apex Court has pronounced upon such regularization in the judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. V. Umadevi & Ors. (2006(4)SCC 1), which WPC.No.25877 /08 :3 : was reiterated in the judgment in State of Bihar V. Upendra Narayan Singh & Ors. (2009(5)SCC 65). In view of this, even in spite of Ext.P2 order relied on, I am persuaded to order regularization of the services of the petitioners. 6. In the light of the above, I am not persuaded to direct that the petitioners should be regularized in service. However, it is directed that the petitioners will be permitted to continue, in so long as their services are necessary or until PSC hands join duty. Writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WPC.No.25877 /08 :4 :