IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2008 / 18TH POUSHA 1929 WA.No. 47 of 2008() ------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.9801/2007 Dated 14/11/2007 .................... APPELLANTS: PETITIONERS ---------------------- 1. P.R.PRADEEP KUMAR, WORKSHOP ASSISTANT(RELIEVED), COLLEGE OF APPLIED SCIENCE, THODUPUZHA, RESIDING AT PAVINNAYIL HOUSE, AMBIKA MARKET P.O., VAIKOM. 2. K.MADHU KUMAR, WORKSHOP ASSISTANT (RELIEVED), COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, POONJAR, RESIDING AT KIZHAVALLIL HOUSE, MUTHOLY P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/3RD PETITIONER ------------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR, INSTITUTE OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, PRAJOE TOWERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE PRINCIPAL, COLLEGE OF APPLIED SCIENCE, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 4. THE PRINCIPAL, COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, POONJAR, IDUKKI DISTRICT. WA 47/08 2 5. THE PRINCIPAL, COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, KALLOOPPARA,KADAMANKULAM P.O., THIRUVALLA. 6. K.BIJU, WORKSHOP ASSISTANT(RELIEVED), COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, KALLOORPARA, THIRUVALLA. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.SANDESH RAJA. R2 TO R5 BY SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR) FOR IHRD THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.Balakrishnan Nair & P.N.Ravindran, JJ. ========================== W.A.No.47 of 2008 ======================== Dated this the 8th day of January, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair,J. The appellants are petitioners 1 and 2 in the writ petition. They were adhoc employees working under the second respondent. They were recruited from the open market without reference to Employment Exchange or issuing public notification and appointed as adhoc employees. The said engagement was extended from time to time. 2. While so, similarly placed persons were regularised in service by Exts.P4 and P5 proceedings of the second respondent. So, the petitioners also moved for regularisation. Whle so, they were terminated from service. In the above background, the writ petition was filed seeking to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to allow the petitioners to continue in service and also for a further direction to regularise them as Workshop Assistants with effect from the date of their initial appointment as Workshop Assistants on adhoc basis. 3. The second respondent filed a counter counter affidavit resisting the prayers in the writ petition. The petitioners filed reply affidavit. A learned single Judge, after hearing both sides, WA 47/08 -: 2 :- dismissed the writ petition relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi - 2006(4) S.C.C. 1. The contention raised by the petitioners/appellants relying on the recent decision of the Apex Court in U.P. State Electricity Board v. Pooran Chandra Pande - 2007(4) K.L.T. 513 was overruled. Feeling aggrieved by the decision of the learned single Judge dismissing the writ petition, this appeal is filed. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants pointed out that similarly placed persons were regularised as evident from Exts.P4 and P5. The learned counsel also submitted that the decision of the Apex Court in U.P. State Electricity Board v. Pooran Chandra Pande - 2007(4) K.L.T. 513 will govern their case. 5. The adhoc employees, who were not recruited by any process known to law, have no legal right for regularisation in a public institution like the Institute of Human Resources Development. The employment under that institution is public employment. Every qualified hand is having a constitutional right to be considered for appointment when the posts in the said institution are filled up. Therefore, we are of the view that the decision in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi - 2006 (4) S.C.C. 1, will squarely apply to the facts of this case. The recent decision in U.P. State Electricity Board v. Pooran Chandra Pande - 2007(4) K.L.T. 513 is a decision rendered on the facts of that particular case. The same cannot dilute the dictum laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in WA 47/08 -: 3 :- Umadevi's Case. Further the regularisation granted to some of the adhoc employees cannot be the foundation for the claim of the appellants. This Court cannot ask the second respondent to repeat an illegality. In the result, the writ appeal fails and it is dismissed. K.Balakrishnan Nair, Judge. P.N.Ravindran, Judge. ess 9/1