IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2008 / 19TH CHAITHRA 1930 OP.No. 13192 of 2001(U) ----------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- J.ALBERT, AGED 26. S/O.D.JAGADAN,T.C.9/20, (ZION), JAWAHAR NAGAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.C.JAMES RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1) KERALA STATE BACKWARD CLASSES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, COTTON HILL, VAZHUTHACADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP: BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2) STATE OF KERALA, REP: BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SC/ST DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3) AMBADI KUNHI, NIGHT WATCHMAN, KERALA STATE BACKWARD CLASSES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, REGIONAL OFFICE, KASARGODE. BY ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS SRI.V.RAJENDRAN GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.N.SUDHA DEVI. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP.No. 13192 of 2001(U) ORDER ON CMP.NO.20892/2001 IN OP.NO.13192/2001-U. DISMISSED. 8.4.2008. Sd/- T.R.Ramachandran Nair, Judge. Petitioner's Exhibits:- P1: Copy of the new item appeared in Malayala Manorama daily dtd.5.2.2001. P2: Copy of the letter addressed to the 2nd respondent dtd.12.1.2001. P3: Copy of the representation dtd.10.2.2001 to the 2nd respondent. P4: Copy of extract of the new item appeared in Kerala Kaumudy dtd.8.3.2001. P5: Copy of the G.O.(Rt.) No.125/2001/SC/ST dtd.14.3.2001. P6: Copy of extract of the Malayala Manorama daily dtd.2.4.2001. P7: Coy of the news item in Malayala Manorama daily dtd.3.4.2001. P8: Copy of extract of the Malayala Manorama Editorial dtd.4.4.2001. Respondents' Exhibits:- Nil. ( True copy ) P.A. to Judge. kvs/- T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ======================= OP.No.13192 of 2001-U. ======================= Dated this the 8th day of April, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P5 by which the Government allowed regularisation in service of 56 daily waged employees working in various capacities as Drivers, Peons, Night Watchman and Part Time Sweeper. The petitioner is a public spirited person who had passed SSLC and registered his name with the Employment Exchange. The first respondent Corporation is a Public Sector undertaking and has framed Special rules for making appointments in the various cadres. It is alleged by the petitioner that bypassing the provisions of the special rules 56 persons have been sought to be regularised as per Ext.P5. 2. In the counter affidavit it is averred that the Corporation was set up in the year 1995 and the Special rules were issued by the Government vide G.O.(Ms).No.89/97/SCST DD dated 29.9.1997. The Corporation was in urgent need for recruitment of OP.No.13192 of 2001-U. -: 2 :- permanent staff and had recruited various numbers of the staff after following the procedure prescribed in different circulars. As far as the regularisation of 56 employees are concerned, it is pointed out that since its inception the Corporation had engaged persons to the lower cadres ie., Drivers, Peons, Night Watchman and Part Time Sweeper etc. As per the rules it decided to recommend the Government to regularise the service of such employees. This was accepted by the Government which resulted in Ext.P5. It is also pointed out that out of the 56 daily waged employees, all except one possessed qualification under the special rules. Therefore they have been appointed against the posts they were working with effect from 14.3.2001 as per proceedings dated 17.4.2001 of the Managing Director. 3. Admittedly there were special rules governing the appointment of necessary staff. The daily waged employees are working in various lower cadres from the inception of the Corporation. It is in those circumstances the Government allowed their regularisation. Since it is revealed that 55 of them are OP.No.13192 of 2001-U. -: 3 :- qualified and all of them have been appointed in implementation of Ext.P5, I do not think at this distance of time this Court will be justified in interfering with Ext.P5. Apart from that none of the 55 persons who are beneficiaries of Ext.P5, are parties before this Court. Even though the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, since these appointments are bad in law and as they have come through the back door, they are not entitled for any notice in the matter, I am of the view that as their appointments stands regularised they are entitled to be heard in these proceedings. Without them in the party array no effective adjudication can be made. In that view of the matter also the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. kvs/-