IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH APRIL 2011 / 16TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 35251 of 2008(V) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ MUHAMMED JALEEL C, S/O. ERMULLAN KUTTY, AGED 37 YEARS, RAHIYANAS, AMBALAM ROAD, MUNDAYAD, VILLAGE ASSISTANT, CHELORA VILLAGE, KANNUR. BY ADVS. SMT.K.K.CHANDRALEKHA SRI.GOPAKUMAR G. (ALUVA) RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BYCHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PIN-695 001 2. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL WELFARE, GOVERNMENT OF KERAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.PIN-695 001 3. THE CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LIMITED, MAVELI BHAVAN, MAVELI ROAD GANDHINAGAR, ERNAKULAM 682 020 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. SMITHA SUKUMAR ADV. SMT.MOLLY JACOB,SC,SUPPLYCO FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 35251 of 2008(V) ------------------------------------ APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER AS FIELD ASSISTANT (HEALTH) AT TALIPARAMBA OF KANNUR DISTRICT EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER VILLAGE ASSOISTANT (REVENUE) AT KAPPAD VILLAGE EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE STANDING DISABILITY ASSESSMNT BOARD CERTIFICATE DT. 07.04.07 EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE ORDER REGULARIZING SERVICE OF HANDICAPPED PROVISIONAL (TEMPORARY) EMPLOYEES FOR THE PERIOD 01.01.93 TO 31.07.94 EXT.P5 : COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED FOR THE PERIOD 01.01.97 TO 31.12.97 EXT.P6 : COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED FOR THE PERIOD 01.01.97 TO 14.08.98 EXT.P7 : COPY OF THE SUBSEQUENT ORDER BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT COVERING THE PERIOD 15.08.98 TO 15.08.99 EXT.P8 : COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM DT. 17.05.07 EXT.P9 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT. 18.07.07 EXT.P10 : COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF EXT.P9 EXT.P11 : COPY OF THE WRIT PETITION EXT.P12 : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT EXT.P13 : COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE RESPONDENTS REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE PETITIONER EXT.P14 : COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE EXT.P15 : COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER WITH RESPECT TO THE 3RD TERM OF PROVISIONAL SERVICE EXT.P16 : COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DT.13.09.10 EXT.P17 : COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 30.04.04 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C) NO.14055/04 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE SMT S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.35251OF 2008 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of April, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a physically handicapped person. He was originally appointed as a provisional Field Assistant for the period from 20.1.1995 to 18.07.1995 by Ext.P1 in the Department of Health and Social Welfare of Government of Kerala. Subsequently, he was employed as a Village Assistant on provisional basis for the period from 1.3.2001 to 25.8.2001 as evidenced by Ext.P2. Thereafter, his provisional appointment ceased. The Government had regularised physically handicapped provisional employees for the period from 1.1.1993 to 31.7.1994, from 1.1.1997 to 31.12.1997, from 1.1.1997 to 14.8.1998 and from 15.8.1998 to 15.8.1999 by Exts.P4 to P7 Government Orders. The petitioner submits that when persons similarly situated, who worked on provisional basis, before the petitioner was engaged on provisional basis and after the petitioner was engaged on temporary basis, have been given the benefit of regularisation in service there was no rationale in excluding W.P.(C)No.35251/08 2 persons who worked in between for grant of such benefit. The petitioner submits that when the Government has taken a policy decision as a social security measure, the Government cannot discriminate persons on the basis of their periods of service. Ext.P13 is the order rejecting the claim of the petitioner pursuant to a direction issued by this Court.The petitioner, therefore, seeks the following reliefs: “ a) Issue writ of mandamus or other writ, order or direction to the respondent, to regularize the provisional appointment of petitioner. b) To Quash Ext.P13 order and issue direction, to the respondent to consider Exhibit P9 representation afresh, without any delay. c) To issue such other and further orders or directions this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper; d) to issue a writ of mandamus or other writ, order or direction against the additional 3rd respondent to regularize the service of the petitioner and retain him in the present post. 2. The contention of the learned Government Pleader is that there is no discrimination as such, insofar as persons were selected for regularisation for specific periods on the basis of intelligible criteria. She points out that in Ext.P4 Government Order, it is specifically stated that the persons, who worked from 1.1.1993 to 31.7.1994 were chosen only because of the SAARC year of the handicapped and Exts.P5 and P6 orders were passed on account of the Golden Jubilee of India's Independence. Therefore, according to the learned W.P.(C)No.35251/08 3 Government Pleader there is no case of discrimination in the matter of excluding handicapped persons working for the period from 1.8.1994 to 31.12.1996. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. Although at first blush the argument of the petitioner would sound attractive, on deeper consideration of the circumstances under which the Government decided to give the benefit to persons who worked for certain periods it does not appear to be arbitrary or discriminatory. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Pleader, Ext.P4 order was passed in the context of SAARC year of the handicapped and Exts.P5 and P6 orders were passed in the context of the Golden Jubilee of India's Independence. Those are intelligible criteria for choosing specific periods for grant this concession which otherwise persons are not entitled to, insofar as public employment should be on the basis of Rules framed by the Government in that regard and such appointments would be in violation of such Rules. If the petitioner's contention is to be accepted physically handicapped persons, once appointed on provisional basis, they have to be automatically regularised in service, which proposition is against the law laid down by this Court to the effect that provisional employees are not entitled W.P.(C)No.35251/08 4 to continue in service beyond the period for which they were so appointed. The same would also be violative of the fundamental rights of the scores of unemployed persons awaiting public employment in the country. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the contentions of the petitioner and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(C)No.35251/08 5