IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 1ST SEPTEMBER 2008 / 10TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 25893 of 2008(G) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: ---------------------- 1. M.S MANOJ, VILLAGE EXTENSION OFFICER, BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICE, PATHANAPURAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. G.SEETHAMMA, LADY VILLAGE EXTENSION OFFICER, DO......DO..... 3. G.MARYKUTTY, DO.....DO..... BY ADV. SRI.KRB.KAIMAL (SR.) SRI.B.UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL SRI.V.MADHUSUDHANAN RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. 3. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, PATHANAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.NANDAKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/09/2008 ALONG WITH WPC.NO.25898 OF 2008 AND WPC. NO.26322 OF 2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.N.Ravindran, J. ===================== W.P(C).Nos.25893,25898 & 26322 of 2008 ================================= Dated this the 1st day of September, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioners in all these cases are Lady Village Extension Officers appointed for a term of 179 days. They seek continuance in service till regular hands recruited by the Kerala Public Service Commission join duty on the ground that the recruitment process is not yet complete. They also rely on the decision of this Court in W.P.(C) No.25330 of 2008 in support of the said contention. 2. By judgment delivered on 25.8.2008 in W.A. No.25330 of 2008 filed by 15 Lady Village Extension Officers in Kollam District, I had directed the District Collector, Kollam to consider whether the petitioners therein can be retained in service till regular hands recruited by the Kerala Public Service Commission join duty. To enable the District Collector to take a decision in the matter, I had also directed that the petitioners therein shall not be relieved, if they have not been relieved before such a decision is taken. By order passed on R.P.No.955 of 2008 filed by the official respondents in the said Writ Petition, I have today recalled the said direction issued to the District Collector, Kollam. A Full Bench of this Court has in Radha v. District Medical Officer - 2002 (2) K.L.T. 711, interpreting the ninth proviso to Rule 9(a)(i) of Part II of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958 held as follows: WP(C) 25893/08 etc. -: 2 :- "There may be situations where temporary employees appointed under R.9(a)(i) are continuing in service as such beyond their term of appointment either by virtue of the interim orders passed by this Court in petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution or due to other circumstances including inaction on the part of the appointing authority to terminate the services of the temporary employee after the specified period. The continuation of the temporary employees appointed under R.9(a)(i) beyond the period of appointment is contrary to the provisions of R.9(a)(i) which we have already extracted in para 10 supra. The temporary employees appointed under R.9(a)(i) have no legal right to insist that they should be allowed to continue in service beyond the period specified in the second and fifth provisos to R.9(a)(i) or till they are replaced by regular hands appointed through P.S.C. or otherwise. The rule making authority can never be understood as making a provision like R.9(a)(iii) to apply to a situation of illegal or unauthorised continuation of temporary employees beyond the specified period. If the said rule is to be applicable even to the temporary employees continuing beyond the term of their appointment that will amount to nullifying the binding effect of the second, fifth and nineth provisos of R.9(a)(i). Such an interpretation would cut at the root of the purpose with which the said provisos are introduced in R.9 (a)(i) of Part II of the Rules." In the light of the authoritative pronouncement of this Court in Radha v. District Medical Officer (supra), the petitioners cannot continue in service beyond the term of 179 days for which they were appointed. In WP(C) 25893/08 etc. -: 3 :- view of the ninth proviso to Rule 9(a)(i) of Part II of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958 also the petitioners cannot also aspire for reappointment unless they satisfy the conditions stipulated for such reappointment. The petitioners cannot therefore claim or be granted any of the reliefs prayed for in these Writ Petitions. The Writ Petitions accordingly fail and they are dismissed in-limine. P.N.Ravindran, Judge. ess 2/9