IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2011 / 28TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 17220 of 2011(B) ------------------------------- PETITIONERS: ---------------- 1. C.V.PRAKASAN, CHALADANVALAPPIL HOUSE, CHANADAKKANA P.O., PETTIKUNDU, KASARAGOD DISTRICT PIN - 671 313. 2. SHIBU KARACKAL, THEKKUMBADAN HOUSE, KOTTAKKEEL, EZHOME P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670334. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.BABY SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH RESPONDENT: ---------------- INSTITUTE OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, PRAJOE TOWERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, TRIVANDRUM - 695014 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR. BY ADV. SHRI M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS,SC,IHRD SRI.V.A.MOHAMMED, SC, IHRD. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.17220/2011 A P P E N D I X PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT. P1 : COPY OF NOTIFICATION DTD.31.1.09 ALONG WITH COVERING LETTER DTD. 2.2.09. EXT. P2 : COPY OF CERTIFICATE ISSUED FROM THE RESPECTIVE INSTITUTIONS TO 1ST PETITIONER DTD. 15.6.11. EXT. P3 : COPY OF CERTIFICATE ISSUED FROM RESPECTIVE INSTITUTIONS TO 2ND PETITIONER DTD. 15.6.11. EXT. P4 : COPY OF ONE SUCH JUDGMENT DTD. 15.3.11 IN W.A.1638/2010. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. // True Copy // P.A. to Judge. smp T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.17220 OF 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of October, 2011. J U D G M E N T Both the petitioners have been appointed on daily wage basis under the respondent. The 1st petitioner is not continuing in service as on today. The petitioners have been engaged in the post of Watchman/Peon. 2. The demand raised by the petitioners is for temporary appointment on a consolidated pay of Rs.6,000/- and they are relying upon the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.1638/2010 and connected cases (produced as Ext.P4 herein) wherein in paragraph 3 it is stated that the Institute was of the view that since the appellants therein had put in service of five years or more as on 14.11.2006, they will be eligible to continue in service albeit on an ad hoc basis. Even though the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is a positive direction by the Bench to consider the claim, I W.P.(C) No.17220/2011 2 am not satisfied that there is any direction as such by this Court in Ext.P4 judgment. 3. The respondent has already filed a counter affidavit stating that the engagement of the petitioners is on daily wage basis and it is clearly mentioned in the order that they will be terminated from service when their service is no longer necessary. The engagement thus made on ad hoc basis is purely governed by the conditions of the order. In that view of the matter, I am not satisfied that the petitioners have made out a case for appointment on a consolidated basis. If the petitioners make any claim for any continued engagement, it is upto the respondent to give a suitable reply to them. This writ petition is disposed of as above. T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE smp