IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 29TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 7TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 27145 of 2009(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. SANDHYA L, AGED 30 YEARS D/O.LEELA, TC 48 /1269 MUDUMBIL VEEDU, AMBALATHARA, POONTHURA PO THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,NOW WORKING AS S.C.PROMOTER IN SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. YAMUNA Y, AGED 33 YEARS TC 15/732, KALLOOR THOTTUVARAMBIL VEEDU KANNAMOOLA, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O.THIRUVANANTHAPURAM NOW WORKING AS S.C.PROMOTER IN SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.BLAZE K.JOSE RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,SCHEDULE CASTE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF SCHEDULED CASTE DIRECTORATE OF SCHEDULE CASTE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER FOR SCHEDULED CASTE ,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY SPL. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No. 27145 of 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 29th September,2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioners, who belong to a Scheduled Caste Community are now working as Scheduled Caste Promoters under the 3rd respondent. They were appointed as per Ext.P4 and P9 orders. Ext. P4 does not show that the petitioners are appointed for a specific term though the order of appointment makes it clear that the appointment is temporary and the same will not be taken into account for the purpose of regular appointment. Ext.P10 communication was passed on 3.7.2009 showing that the persons who are appointed as Scheduled Caste Promoters in Thiruvananthapuram District will stand discharged from service with effect from 30.6.2009 but will be permitted to continue from 1.7.2009 till regular Scheduled Caste Promoters are otherwise appointed. Petitioners challenge Ext.P10 on the ground that they are now sought to be replaced by other provisional employees. They also contend that their order of appointment does not give a specific period of appointment as such., W.P ( C) No. 27145 of 2009 2 2. I heard learned Special Government Pleader also. 3. Orders of appointment in so far as petitioners are concerned, show that they have been appointed only on a provisional basis. They cannot therefore claim any fixity of tenure. Appointment will have to be treated as essentially under Rule 9 (a) (i) of Part II, K.S & S.S.R though provision as such is not mentioned in the order. Since the petitioners cannot claim any right to continue for any specific term let alone be permitted to continue till regular appointments are effected, I do not find any illegality in Ext.P10. I make it clear that the fact that the petitioners had approached this Court or that the original order of appointment did not specifically contain the period of appointment will not stand in the way of the respondents considering the petitioners also for an appointment as Scheduled Caste Promoters on a provisional basis for the period subsequent to 1.7.2009. Subject to the above, writ petition is disposed of. (V.GIRI,JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No. 27145 of 2009 3 W.P ( C) No. 27145 of 2009 4