IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN FRIDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1933 WA.No. 1625 of 2011() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.18839/2011 Dated 05/09/2011 .................... APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 IN THE WRIT PETITION. ------------------------------------------------------ 1. THE DIRECTOR OF MUSEUMS AND ZOOS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 007. 2. THE SERGEANT, MUSEUMS AND ZOOS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695007. 3. THE GARDEN SUPERINTENDENT, MUSEUMS AND ZOOS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 007. 4. THE CURATOR, MUSEUMS AND ZOOS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 007. BY ADVOCATE GENERAL SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS 1 TO 30 IN THE WRIT PETITION ------------------------------------------------------- 1. PREETHA S. SWEEPER, MUSEUMS AND ZOOS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 007. 2. GIRIJA .L, SWEEPER, MUSEUMS AND ZOOS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 007 3. USHAKUMARI.S SWEEPER, MUSEUMS AND ZOOS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 007. 4. SHYLAJA S. SWEEPER, MUSEUMS AND ZOOS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 007. 5. LEKSHMI, SWEEPER, MUSEUMS AND ZOOS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 007. 6. BABY K, SWEEPER, MUSEUMS AND ZOOS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 007. 7. SATHEE KUMAR A., GARDEN, MUSEUMS AND ZOOS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 007. 8. ULLASKUMAR V., GARDNER,MUSEUMS AND ZOOS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 007. 9. RAJENDRAN.C.V. GARDNER, MUSEUMS AND ZOOS, THIRUVANATHAPURAM-695 007. 10. BIJU GOVIND G.P. GARDNER, MUSEUMS AND ZOOS. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 007. 11. VENUKUTTAN.P, GARDNER, MUSEUMS AND ZOOS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 007. 12. SHIBU S.D. GARDNER, MUSEUMS AND ZOOS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 007. 13. SATHEESAN.U GARDNER, MUSEUMS AND ZOOS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 007. 14. M.KAURNAKARAN, GARDNER, MUSEUMS AND ZOOS THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 007. 15. R.N.RAMESH, GARDNER,MUSEUMS AN ZOOS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695007. 16. RAJAN K, GARDNER,MUSEUMS AN ZOOS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695007 17. SAJITH KUMAR .S, GARDNER, MUSEUMS AND ZOOS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 007. 18. R.RETHNAKARAN, GARDNER, MUSEUMS AND ZOOS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 007. 19. ANIL KUMAR .K, GARDNER, MUSEUM AND ZOOS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695007. 20. SATHYARAJAN .S, GARDNER, MUSEUM AND ZOOS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695007. 21. ANULAL S.S, GARDNER, MUSEUMS AND ZOOS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 007 22. S.AJAYAKUMAR, GARDNER, MUSEUMS AND AOOS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 007 23. SANTHOSH KUMAR R.S., GARDNER, MUSEUMS AND ZOOS, THIRUVANNATHAPURAM- 695 007. 24. SUJI R. GARDNER, MUSEUMS AND ZOOS, THIRUVANNATHAPURAM- 695 007. 25. SAJI MON A.K. GARDNER, MUSEUMS AND ZOOS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 007 26. SREEJITH, KEEPER, MUSEUMS AND ZOOS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 007 27. RAJESH S.N. KEEPER, MUSEUMS AND ZOOS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 007. 28. VINOJ KUMAR. B KEEPER, MUSEUMS AND ZOOS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 007. 29. SABU KUMAR.B GUARD, MUSEUM AND ZOOS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 007. 30. SURESH .R, GUARD, MUSEUM AND ZOOS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 007. BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MOHAMMED THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX ANNEXURE A1: TRUE COPY OF CONSENT LETTER DT.26.10.2007 ISSUED BY R2. ANNEXURE A2: .DO. DT.24.10.2007 ISSUED BY R3. ANNEXURE A3: .DO. DT.24.10.2007 ISSUED BY R4. ANNEXURE A4: .DO. DT.11.12.2007 ISSUED BY R7. ANNEXURE A5: .DO. DT.20.10.2007 ISSUED BY R8. ANNEXURE A6: .DO. DT.23.10.2007 ISSUED BY R9. ANNEXURE A7: .DO. DT.29.1.2008 ISSUED BY R10. ANNEXURE A8: .DO. DT.30.1.2008 ISSUED BY R11. ANNEXURE A9: .DO. DT.8.1.2008 ISSUED BY R12. ANNEXURE A10: .DO. DT.4.8.2008 ISSUED BY R14. ANNEXURE A11: .DO. DT.31.3.2009 ISSUED BY R15. ANNEXURE A12: .DO. DT.31.3.2009 ISSUED BY R16. ANNEXURE A13: .DO. BY R17. ANNEXURE A14: .DO. DT.28.7.2009 ISSUED BY R18. ANNEXURE A15: .DO. DT.20.8.2009 ISSUED BY R20. ANNEXURE A16: .DO. DT.24.3.2010 ISSUED BY R22. ANNEXURE A17: .DO. DT.26.3.2010 ISSUED BY R23. ANNEXURE A18: .DO. DT.14.3.2010 ISSUED BY R25. ANNEXURE A19: .DO. DT.31.3.2009 ISSUED BY R29. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, Ag. C.J. & P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. .................................................................... Writ Appeal No.1625 of 2011 .................................................................... Dated this the 4th day of November, 2011. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, Ag. C.J. Heard the Advocate General for appellants and counsel appearing for respondents who took notice on admission. The respondents are casual employees engaged in the Trivandrum Museum and Zoo. Their appointments are purely adhoc and as of now, recruitment from Employment Exchange is going on. The learned Single Judge while considering the W.P.(C) held that the appellants are entitled to make recruitment from candidates sponsored by Employment Exchange. There is no dispute on this finding which is in favour of the appellants. Respondents also have not filed Writ Appeal challenging this part of the judgment which is against them. However, there is an observation of the learned Single Judge that since the respondents have served for over 10 years on adhoc basis, they should also be considered along with the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchanges. It is this part of the direction in the judgment that is under challenge in the Writ W.A. 1625/2011 2 Appeal. 2. After hearing both sides, we do not find any basis for the learned Single Judge to hold that respondents are at par with the candidates being recruited from Employment Exchange. Employment Exchange forwards names with reference to seniority in registration and so much so, they constitute a separate category. The Advocate General has denied the long period of employment of the respondents on adhoc basis which was the assumption made by the learned Single Judge based on which direction is issued. If the statement produced by the Advocate General is correct, then respondents are employed only 2 years or maximum three years, that too, not on all days. In any case we do not find any justification for respondents being considered along with candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange. However, we feel if the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchanges are inadequate or are found unsuitable, then certainly respondents should be retained until regular selection as they are people already W.A. 1625/2011 3 experienced and whose services are availed by the appellants so far. Writ Appeal is allowed modifying the impugned judgment to the extent indicated above. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Acting Chief Justice P.S.GOPINATHAN Judge pms