IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 30TH MAY 2008 / 9TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 25090 of 2004(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ SMT.SREEKUMARI, RESIDING AT VALIYAVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, JAWAHAR NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.N.DHARMADAN (SR.) SMT.R.RANJINI RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, CULTURAL AFFAIRS (C) DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. KERALA STATE INSTITUTE OF LANGUAGES, NALANDA, NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE INSTITUTE OF LANGUAGES, NALANDA, NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. SMT.K.O.PADMAKUMARI, BINDER, KERALA STATE INSTITUTE OF LANGUAGES, NALANDA, NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. DY.INSPECTOR GENERAL (VIGILANCE & ANTICORRUPTION BUREAU), PATTOM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 AND R5 BY G.P. SMT. SMITHA BY ADV. SRI.V.R.GOPU FOR R4 SRI.P.K.VIJAYAMOHANAN FOR R2 & 3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 10.1.1996 BY PETITIONER TO THIRD RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR NO. 1437/A1/96/CAD DATED 24.3.97 ISSUED BY GOVERNMENT. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 14.1.2000 BY SMT. ASHA KHOSH EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN OP. 32287 OF 2000 DATED 21.11.2000 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DECISION DATED 5.10.2001 BY THIRD RESPONDENT. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN OP 574 OF 1996 DATED 30.10.2001 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN OP 3712 OF 2000 DATED 30.10.2001 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. VI/91/2004/SIL DATED 14.7.2004 BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT. EXT.P9 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 14.7.2004 BY PETITIONER'S FATHER TO 5TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P10 TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION G.O.(P) NO. 35/99/GAD DATED 18.8.99 ISSUED BY GOVT. EXT.P11 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 3.4.96 ISSUED BY LANGUAGE INSTITUTE. EXT.P12 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 11.7.2003 ISSUED BY LANGUAGE INSTITUTE. EXT.P13 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 26.7.2006 ISSUED BY LANGUAGE INSTITUTE. 3RD RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R3(a) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WA 3360 OF 2000 DATED 22.1.2001 EXT.R3(b) TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN CMP 2908 OF 2001 IN WA 3360 OF 2001 EXT.R3(c) TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN OP 4006 OF 1996 DATED 30.10.2001 EXT.R3(d) TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WPC 15409 OF 2004 DATED 7.3.2005 4TH RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R4(a) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT NO. VI-190/96/SIL DATED 3.4.1996 EXT.R4(b) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. E1/`1028/2003/SIL DATED 11.7.2003 EXT.R4(c) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. E1./2973/1994/SIL DATED 30.10.2001 TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO.25090 OF 2004 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of May, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner, an applicant for class IV employee's post before the second respondent is challenging the appointment of fourth respondent on temporary basis and confirmed later. Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that fourth respondent's appointment was challenged earlier by another person in O.P.No. 3712 of 2000 which was disposed of by this Court on 30.10.2001 following the judgment in O.P.No.574 of 1996 on the same day of the same Bench. However, it is seen from Ext.P6 judgment in O.P.No. 574 of 1996, this Court closed the O.P. as infructuous because of the statement by respondents' counsel about the decision of the Managing Committee taken on 5.10.2001 to terminate the services of all provisional hands and to effect appointment on contract basis. In fact this Court closed the O.P. as infructuous without actually going into the details of decisions taken by the Managing Committee on 5.10.2001. The decision taken by the 2 Managing Committee is produced as Ext.P8 in the connected WPC 25607 of 2006. It is seen from Ext.P8 that it is an order issued on 30.10.2001 giving effect to the decision taken on 5.10.2001. Under this order 13 persons appointed on temporary and contract basis were removed from service. The fourth respondent does not figure in the list. However, it is seen from Ext.P11 produced by the petitioner that services of the fourth respondent was regularised in the decision taken by the Managing Committee on 11.1.1996. She was stated to be appointed on temporary basis a few years before the date of her regularisation. Senior counsel for the petitioner contended that regularisation made in 1996 is illegal and contrary to the judgment in O.P.No. 3712 of 2000. On going through Ext.P6 produced in connected WPC 25607 of 2006, I find fourth respondent was not a party in that O.P. and the appointment challenged in that O.P. was class IV employee whereas the fourth respondent was class III employee. In Ext.P7 judgment it is seen that fourth respondent was arrayed as respondent No.10 specifically mentioning that she is a binder in class III post. The said O.P. was also disposed of by this Court following the 3 judgment in O.P.No. 574 of 1996 which was dealing with class IV employees. Regularisation of service of fourth respondent probably questioned in O.P.No. 3712 of 2000 was not specifically contested at all. Moreover it is seen that, that O.P. itself was filed in 2000 whereas the service of the fourth respondent stood regularised on 11.1.1996 by the Managing Committee. Even though senior counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that regularisation of service of the fourth respondent was not in accordance with rules, I do not think this Court will be justified in interfering with an appointment made 12 years back. Even on the date of filing of this W.P.C. it is seen that fourth respondent had put in 8 years of regular service. W.P.C. therefore fails and is dismissed. (C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge kk 4