IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2009 / 1ST MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 2233 of 2009(N) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- GIRIJA BHAI. A.L.,W/O.K.SURESH, DEVIKA BHAVAN, MELLOODE P.O., ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEWS RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DAIRY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. THE DIRECTOR, DAIRY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT DAIRY DEVELOPMENT, KERALA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. ANU SIVARAMAN FOR R1 TO R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.2233/2009-N ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 21st day of January, 2009 J U D G M E N T This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the action taken by the first respondent to terminate the service of the petitioner from the post of Attender. The petitioner is a physically handicapped person. Presently she is working as Attender in the office of the first respondent. She was appointed through Employment Exchange for a period of 180 days. 2. According to the petitioner, she was benefited by appointments earlier through various spells as per Exts.P2, P3 and P4 orders. 3. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that going by the terms of Ext.P6, she will be terminated on the regular hands joining duty and particular attention is invited to paragraph (2) of Ext.P6 to that effect. 4. Admittedly the appointment is only under Rule 9(a)(i) of Part II K.S.& S.S.R and maximum period of appointment is 179 days. It is well settled by the various decisions of this Court that such a W.P.(C) No.2233/2009 -:2:- candidate will not get a right at all either for regularisation or for continuance. See the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Shajan Abraham v.State of Kerala [1998 (2) KLT 153]. Even otherwise a beneficiary of a provisional appointment like the petitioner cannot insist that the respondents are not entitled to terminate the service of the petitioner after the expiry of the period of appointment. Going by the terms of the appointment itself, it is clear that the appointment is only on provisional basis and the person concerned is liable for termination on completion of 180 days. Therefore, it cannot be said that the action to terminate her service is illegal or against the Rules. Hence, the writ petition fails. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that a direction may be issued to the Government to consider Ext.P8. It is upto the petitioner to pursue the said remedy. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms