IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 17TH DECEMBER 2010 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 31005 of 2010(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): 1 ---------------- AJITH KUMAR.A.T,S/O.K.THANKAPPAN, HARI SADANAM,CHANGANKARY.P.O,EDATHUA,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,GUEST LECTURER (COMPUTER HARDWARE),LBS CENTRE FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,SUB CENTRE, THATHAMPALLY.P.O,ALAPPUZHA-688013. BY ADV. SRI.KRISHNA PRASAD. S RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DIRECTOR,LBS CENTRE FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,NANDAVANAM,PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033. 2. OFFICER IN CHARGE,LBS CENTRE FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,SUB CENTRE,THATHAMPALLY.P.O, ALAPPUZHA-688013. 3. THE SECRETARY,DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION,SECRETARIATE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 301. 4. THE SECRETARY,DEPARTMENT OF SCHEDULED CAST DEVELOPMEN,SECRETARIATE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695301. 5. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY,SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 301. ADV. SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR SC, LBS CENTRE FOR R1-2 GOVT. PLEADER SMT. NISHA BOSE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 31005 of 2010 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 17th day of December, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner belongs to a scheduled caste community. He has been working as a guest faculty in the Sub Centre of the LBS Centre for Science and Technology at Thathampally, Alappuzha from 2005 onwards. The petitioner submits that because of his long service as a guest faculty, the petitioner is entitled to regularisation in service. The petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs: “(i) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the 1st and 2nd respondents not to terminate the petitioner from employment and fill up the vacancy with a temporary employee. (ii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to take necessary steps to regularise the petitioner at the earliest point of time following guidelines stipulated for scheduled caste reservation without any further delay. (iii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to disburse the arrears of wages due to the petitioner.” 2. A statement has been filed by the respondents 1 and 2 producing Annexure R1(c) judgment of this Court, wherein, this Court, while directing regularisation of the then existing contract employees, directed that all future appointments/engagements shall be made only after due publication of advertisements and inviting applications as in the case of any public employment. That judgment was rendered on 7.1.2003. Therefore, according to respondents 1 and 2, the petitioner's service cannot be regularised insofar as after 7.1.2003, this Court has specifically prevented respondents 1 and 2 from regularising the services of temporary employees. 3. I have heard both parties. 4. In Annexure R1(c) judgment, this Court has directed as follows: W.P.C. No. 31005/2010 -: 2 :- “Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner in all these cases and also the learned counsel for the LBS Centre, I am of the view that these original petitions can be disposed of recording the submission of the learned counsel for the Centre to the effect that in special Rules framed by the Government Body at its meeting held on 18.11.98 (Ext. P10 in O.P.2367/99) shall be strictly followed while regularising the service of the temporary/contract employees and staff and that all future appointments/engagements will be made only after due publication of advertisements and inviting applications as i the case of any public employment.” That judgment is dated 7.1.2003. Therefore, after 7.1.2003, respondents 1 and 2 cannot make appointment by regularising guest lecturers. That judgment has become final also. Therefore, the petitioner who has been appointed only as a guest faculty after 7.1.2003, cannot seek regularisation of his service as a guest lecturer. As such, I am not inclined to countenance the petitioner's claim in that regard. 5. The petitioner has got a case that the LBS Centre of Science and Technology is not following the reservation policies of the Government while making appointment. I do not think that it is necessary to consider that issue in this writ petition insofar as the petitioner is not challenging any appointment made violating rules of reservation. Suffice to say that it would be open to the petitioner to challenge any appointments made in violation of the law applicable. 6. The petitioner submits that the petitioner has not been paid salary for all the period the petitioner worked, the details of which are given in Ext. P3. The petitioner is entitled to payment for the work done by him, if he has worked for the period stated in Ext. P3. In the W.P.C. No. 31005/2010 -: 3 :- above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 1st respondent to see whether the petitioner is entitled to any arrears of payment for the period the petitioner has actually worked as mentioned in Ext. P3 and if any amount is due to him, to pay the same within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE.