IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 10TH AUGUST 2010 / 19TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 24032 of 2010(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- 1. NISSA R.K, ICDS SUPERVISOR, ICDS PROJECT, NILAMBUR, CHANTHAKKUNNU PO, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. MOLLY S, ICDS SUPERVISOR, ICDS PROJECT, WANDOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. LILLIKUTTY A ICDS SUPERVISOR, ICDS PROJECT, MANKADA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 4. M.KAMALAVATHI, ICDS SUPERVISOR, ICDS PROJECT, NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 5. SUDHARMANI R ICDS SUPERVISOR, ICDS PROJECT, NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 6. PADMAKUMARI T ICDS SUPERVISOR, ICDS PROJECT, PAYYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT 7. KRISHNAKUMARI AMMA P ICDS SUPERVISOR, ICDS PROJECT, IRIKKOOR, SREEKANDAPURAM, KANNUR DISTRICT. 8. LATHA K.P. ICDS SUPERVISOR, ICDS PROJECT, IRIKKOOR, SREEKANDAPURAM, KANNUR DISTRICT. 9. JAMEELA K ICDS SUPERVISOR, ICDS PROJECT, IRIKKOOR, SREEKANDAPURAM, KANNUR DISTRICT. WPC NO.24032/2010 -2- 10. PATHUMMA O ICDS SUPERVISOR, ICDS PROJECT, KONDOTTY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 11. VIJAYALAKSHMI T ICDS SUPERVISOR, ICDS PROJECT, TIRUR, MALAPPUPRAM DISTRICT. 12. K.DHANALAKSHMY ICDS SUPERVISOR, ICDS PROJECT, TIRUR, MALAPPUPRAM DISTRICT. 13. NABEESATHU BEEVI K ICDS SUPERVISOR, ICDS PROJECT, VANDOOR, MALAPPUPRAM DISTRICT. 14. GIRIJAKUMARI ICDS SUPERVISOR, ICDS PROJECT, NEELESWARAM, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 15. GEETHA P.L ICDS SUPERVISOR, ICDS PROJECT, MANJESHWARAM, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 16. LEKHA S ICDS SUPERVISOR, ICDS PROJECT, PAYYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. 17. RANI K. SREEDHAR ICDS SUPERVISOR, ICDS PROJECT, MANKADA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN SRI.K.K.GOPINATHAN NAIR SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) SRI.MATHEW SUNNY SRI.ANOOP.V.NAIR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1 2. THE DIRECTOR SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-33 GOVT.PLEADER SRI.ARAVINDKUMAR BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 24032 OF 2010 (D) ===================== Dated this the 10th day of August, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioners were included in the ranked list for the post of ICDS Supervisor. They were not appointed and they approached this Court by filing OP No.26249/01 and connected cases. Original petitions were dismissed. WA No.2876/02 filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge was disposed of by Ext.P1 judgment. A reading of Ext.P1 judgment shows that realising the fact that the direct recruitment quota was already exhausted, petitioners claimed that they should be considered against the vacancies in the promotion quota on the ground that qualified persons were not available for promotion. That claim was also rejected. Thereafter, they pleaded that until persons are available for filling up the vacancies in the promotion quota, if the Government wants to temporarily fill up the post of Supervisor, they should be considered for appointment on contract basis. It would appear that the said contention was accepted by the respondents also, and that on that basis, WA was disposed of with the following directions: WPC No. 24032/10 :2 : 7. In view of the fair stand adopted by the counsel for the parties, we dispose of this appeal with the direction that in case the Government decides to fill up the available posts of Supervisors on contract basis, it shall do so by appointing persons whose names appear in the rank list. The candidates shall be considered in the order of their merit. The appointments shall be purely contractual. These shall not confer any right to regular appointment. In the event of suitable and eligible persons becoming available for promotion, the persons appointed on contract basis shall have to vacate the posts. 2. Accordingly, petitioners were appointed on contract basis during the year 2004. In this writ petition, what they seek is that having regard to the fact that they have been continuing on contract basis and also as the Government have already issued Ext.P4 regularizing the services of certain other ICDS Supervisors, their appointments should be regularized. Seeking such a prayer, they have filed Exts.P5 to P21 representations before the 1st respondent and prays for a direction for its consideration. 3. However, as rightly pointed out by the learned Government Pleader, the very appointment of the petitioners was on contract basis and was pursuant to the direction in Ext.P1 judgment, which specifically provides that such appointments shall not confer any right for regular appointment and it will be purely contractual and subject to the availability of candidates for WPC No. 24032/10 :3 : promotion. If that be so, petitioners cannot claim regularization of their services and consequently they cannot also seek direction for the consideration of their claims. 4. True, the Government have regularized the contract appointment of ICDS Supervisors as per Ext.P4 order. However, a reading of the order itself shows that this appointments were made during 1995 and those persons were continuing in service, without any court order. It was in those circumstances, their services were regularized, which order was also upheld by this Court in the judgment in WP(C) No.2353/2010. Writ petition therefore fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp