IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 14TH JUNE 2010 / 24TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 29276 of 2005(I) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- K.K. VENUGOPAL, PUMP OPERATOR, CHOKKAD GIRIJAN COLONEY, CHOKKAD, RESIDING AT KRISHNAVILASOM, CHOKKAD P.O., KALLUMOOLA, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, REP. BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HRD), K.W.A., `JALA BHAVAN', THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SECRETARY, CHOKKAD GRAMA PANCHAYAT, CHOKKAD P.O., MALAPPURAM. R1 & R2 BY SRI.JOY GEORGE, S.C, K.W.A, R3 BY ADV. SRI.R.RAMADAS, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/06/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.29276/2005-I: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE DETAILS OF THE PARTICIPANTS SELECTED FOR TRAINING IN MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 25/04/2000 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, KALIKAVU GRAMA PANCHAYAT. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE ORDER IN O.P. NO. 647/04 DTD. 29/06/2005 OF THE HON'BLE OMBUDSMAN. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE R.3. DTD. 25/08/2005. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DTD. 22/09/2005 OF THE CHOKKAD GRAMA PANCHAYAT. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE REPLY TO THE ABOVE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DT. 10/10/2005 OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE TERMINATION NOTICE DTD. 30/09/2005 OF THE SECRETARY, CHOKKAD GRAMA PANCHAYAT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.29276/2005-I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 14th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has approached this Court by challenging Ext.P7, a notice terminating his service, issued by the Secretary of the Chokkad Grama Panchayat. The said order is attacked on various grounds. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Water Authority as well as the Panchayat. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he was recruited as a Pump Operator by the first respondent-Water Authority under Chokkad Girijan Colony Water Supply Scheme as per the decision taken by the Kalikavu Grama Panchayat Committee. Later Chokkad Grama Panchayat was formed by the bifurcation of the said panchayat. It is submitted that the action taken by the Chokkad Grama Panchayat in issuing Ext.P5 notice to show cause as to why his service shall not be terminated, is clearly unsupportable. It is pointed out that the petitioner was appointed by the Water Authority and allotted to the Panchayat and, therefore, the Panchayat has no reason to terminate the service of the petitioner. 4. It is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel for the Water Authority that the Water Authority has only imparted training to persons selected by the Panchayats and W.P.(C). No.29276/2005 -:2:- there was no appointment by the Water Authority and, therefore, the said contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted. 5. The learned Standing Counsel for the Panchayat submitted that the petitioner was appointed along with other persons under a water supply scheme, duly on a temporary basis, as Pump Operator as per Ext.P2. It is made clear in Ext.P2 that the appointment is purely provisional and is liable to be terminated if the Panchayat is not satisfied with their functioning. It is therefore submitted that by no stretch of imagination it can be said that it is a permanent appointment. It is also submitted that, by Ext.P3, the learned Ombudsman has permitted the Panchayat to take necessary action against the petitioner including termination from service after issuing proper notice and following the procedure according to law. 6. It is clear that the petitioner had approached the learned Ombudsman earlier seeking for various benefits. The only direction issued therein is to disburse the wages for the period during which he had worked as Pump Operator. Evidently, permission was granted to the Panchayat to take necessary action including termination from service after initiating proper procedure. Ext.P5 is a notice issued to the petitioner. A reading of the notice shows that the W.P.(C). No.29276/2005 -:3:- engagement was only temporary and inspite of directions issued by the Panchayat, he was not performing his duties. Ext.P6 is a reply said to have been given by the petitioner. 7. Various aspects have been considered by the Panchayat in Ext.P7 while terminating his service from 21/09/2005. It cannot be said that going by Ext.P2, there is a right of permanency for the petitioner, as the appointment was purely on temporary basis. The plea raised that the petitioner was recruited by the first respondent Water Authority and thereafter provided to the respective the Panchayat is also not supportable. What is involved is an appointment, purely temporary in nature. As per Ext.P2, every month the petitioner was getting an engagement for 15 days for which wages have been paid. In the light of the above, as the terms of employment are covered by the specific terms in Ext.P2, the Panchayat was right in taking action to terminate the service on being satisfied that the petitioner was not performing his duties properly to the satisfaction of the Panchayat. It cannot be said that the termination therefore, is arbitrary or illegal. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. W.P.(C). No.29276/2005 -:4:- (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms