IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH MARCH 2008 / 6TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 10046 of 2008(U) PETITIONER: SEENA V., 'USHAS', EYYACODE, PULLUPANA P.O., KADAKKAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT. WORKING AS COMPUTER PROGRAMMER, STATE FARMING CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD. TILL 30-10-06 BY ADV. SRI.P.A.AHAMMED SRI.M.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENTS: 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE FARMING CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD. P.B.NO.13, VETTITHITTA P.O., PUNALUR, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.AJITH KRISHNAN, SC,STATE FARMING CORP. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C).No.10046 of 2008 ------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of March, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner, who is a Post Graduate in Computer Science, was appointed on temporary basis as a Computer Programmer for a period of 179 days as evidenced by Ext.P2. According to the petitioner, she was again appointed for different periods intermittently on provisional basis and on contract basis. She submits that, taking note of her intermittent spells of service, she may be regularised in service. She has submitted Ext.P5 representation. 2. Standing counsel for the 2nd respondent submits that the posts in the second respondent can be filled up only by the Public Service Commission. 3. I heard learned learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader. In the circumstances, it would not be possible for the 2nd respondent to regularise any person appointed on provisional basis. The petitioner submits that similarly situated persons in the Beverages Corporation and Civil W.P.(C).NO.10046/08 :: 2 :: Supplies Corporation were regularised. Persons, who have been appointed on contract basis are not entitled to seek regularisation. The dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi {2006(4) SCC1} is clear on this point. Now that the posts have been brought within the purview of the Public Service Commission, I do not find my way to direct the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner's case. Assuming that there is regularisation in any other organisation, that does not give a right to the petitioner to claim regularisation in the 2nd respondent. This court cannot ignore the law laid down by the Supreme Court in this behalf. The writ petition is bereft of merit and the same is dismissed. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. To Judge