IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 24TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 5TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 2480 of 2011(H) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- RAJAN.M.T., S/O.LATE THOMAS, AGED 47 YEARS, WORKING AS JEEP DRIVER, ARALAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, RESIDING AT MULAPPURATH HOUSE, PAYAM.P.O., VELLARI VAYAL,THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. PIN-670 704. BY ADV. SRI.R.SURENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. ARALAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, ARALAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, EDOOR, P.O.PAYAM, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. PIN-670 704. 2. THE SECRETARY, ARALAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, P.O.PAYAM, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. PIN-670 704. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001. ADV. SRI.CIBI THOMAS FOR R1-2 GOVT. PLEADER SRI. ANTONY MUKKATH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: W.P.C. NO. 2480/2011. ------------------------------------------------------------------ EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION DT. 6.6.2006. EXT.P2 QUESTIONS PUT BY PETITIONER AND ANSWERS GIVEN BY R2. EXT.P3 JUDGMENT DT. 10.11.2010 IN W.P.C. NO. 33987/2010. EXT.P4 DECISON OF PANCHAYAT TAKEN ON 7.1.2011. EXT.P5 NOTICE DT. 12.1.2011 ISSUED BY R2. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: ---------------------------------------- EXT.R1(A) TRUE COPY OF REQUEST DT. 12.1.2011. EXT.R1(B) RELEVANT PAGES OF PAPER PUBLICATION. EXT.R1(C) NOTICE D. 28.1.2011. EXT.R1(D) POSTAL RECEIPTS EVIDENCING ISSUANCE OF EXT. R(9C) . EXT.R1(E) AGREEMENT DT. 1.7.2006. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 2480 of 2011 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 24th day of February, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a temporary driver working in the 1st respondent-Panchayat on daily wage basis since 20-6-2006. The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the Panchayat in taking steps to appoint a new driver on daily wage basis. The question of appointment of temporary drivers in various Panchayats was the subject matter of a judgment in W.P(C) No. 26662/2005 and connected cases in which I passed Ext. P3 judgment directing that even temporary drivers can be engaged only after inviting applications from public and making a selection from the applicants. The petitioner's contention is that the Panchayat is now taking steps to appoint another person without inviting applications. The petitioner contends that insofar as he has been recruited after a notification inviting applications published in the notice boards of the Panchayat Office and other Government Offices, he was appointed after a selection process in accordance with Ext. P3 judgment and therefore he cannot be terminated from service. The petitioner seeks the following reliefs: “a) Quashing Ext. P4 decision of the 1st respondent, the Ext. P5 notice issued by the 2nd respondent and all consequent steps taken by the respondents no. 1 and 2 as illegal. b) Mandamus directing the respondents no. 1 and 2 to allow the petitioner to continue in service till regular hands are appointed.” 2. At the time of admission, I passed the following interim order: W.P(C) No. 2480/11 -: 2 :- “There would be an interim order not to make appointment pursuant to Ext. P5 without obtaining orders from this Court.” 3. The Panchayat has now filed a counter affidavit along with which they have produced Ext. R1(b) newspaper, wherein there is a news report informing the public that the 1st respondent-Panchayat has invited applications for appointment of drivers on temporary basis and qualified persons should file applications within 10 days. That news paper is dated 30.1.2011. 3. Counsel for the petitioner points out that insofar as he has been appointed after a selection process, his services cannot be terminated. As far as Ext. R1(b) is concerned, he would contend that in Ext. R1(a) issued by the Panchayat the last date prescribed is 22.1.2011, which does not conform to Ext. R1(b) as per which the last date would be 23.1.2011. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 5. As far as the contention of the petitioner that he has been appointed after a selection process is concerned, I am not inclined to countenance that contention. The fact that the notice inviting applications has been published in the notice boards of the Panchayat and other Government offices would not, according to me, be sufficient publication of the notification inviting applications. It is not as if every qualified driver of the the Panchayat would go to the Panchayat Office, Village Office etc., to find out whether any notifications are put in the notice board inviting applications. Apart from the same, drivers of other Panchayats are also entitled to be considered for such public employment, who would have no notice of such publication. Therefore, I am of opinion that unless the W.P(C) No. 2480/11 -: 3 :- notification inviting applications is published in at least one news paper, it cannot be said to be a proper acceptable selection process. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention of the petitioner that since he has been appointed after a regular selection process his services could not be terminated. 6. Regarding the second contention also, I do not find any merit in view of Ext R1(b). In Ext. R1(b), the public has been given information that the Panchayat has invited applications for appointment of drivers on daily wages. It has also been specifically directed therein that application should reach the Panchayat Office within 10 days. The fact that there is slight discrepancy in Ext. R1(a) regarding the last date, that too in favour of the applicants , I do not find any merit in the contention raised in that regard. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/