IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 3RD FEBRUARY 2009 / 14TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 32566 of 2008(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SOJAN.K, VALIYAVILAPADEETATHIL, PADINJATTAKIZHKKU, CHOORANGADU NORTH CHAKKUVALLY THAZHAVA. BY ADV. SRI.A.N.RAJAN BABU SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNAN (MVA) SRI.A.R.EASWAR LAL RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD. (KSFE), REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, CORPORATE OFFICE, BHADRATHA, THRISSUR - 680 020. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, CORPORATE OFFICE, BHADRATHA, THRISSUR - 680 020. 3. BRANCH MANAGER, THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD., CHAKKUVALLY BRANCH, KOLLAM. ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR FOR R1 & 2 SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR FOR R1 & 2 SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI FOR R1 & 2 SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS FOR R1 & 2 SRI.ANIL D. NAIR FOR R1 & 2 SRI.V.J.ANAND FOR R1 & 2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No.32566 of 2008 -------------------------- Dated this the 3rd February,2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner was engaged as a Part-time Sweeper by the 1st respondent from the date of opening of Chakkuvally branch. The branch was opened on 5.9.2005. According to the petitioner, from 27.10.2005 onwards he was appointed as casual worker. He continued till August 2007 there, which is evidenced by Exhibit-P1, true copy of the attendance register relating to him. Apprehending termination of service by accommodating another person named Saleela in his place, petitioner filed writ petition WPC No.1365 of 2006. Initially this Court passed an interim order as per Ext. P3 allowing him to continue in the branch as Part-time Sweeper if he is not already transferred from that branch. The said writ petition was disposed of as per Ext. P4 judgment. This Court disposed of the writ petition recording the stand taken in the counter affidavit that the petitioner will be terminated W.P ( C) No.32566 of 2008 2 only to accommodate a regular hand. According to the petitioner, Smt.Saleela who was a junior to the petitioner, joined as Part-time Sweeper only on 31.10.2005 was regularized in service by the 1st respondent. This is evidenced by Exhibit-P5. According to the petitioner several of his juniors have been regularized in service but his claim has not been considered.. He has filed Exhibit-P5 representation before the 2nd respondent. Pending consideration of the same he was relieved from service. According to the petitioner, there are various vacancies remaining unfilled in other branches of the 1st respondent. 2. Respondents have filed a counter affidavit traversing the contentions raised by the petitioner. It is submitted that the 1st respondent is a Government company and as far as recruitment of employees to different posts are concerned it is governed by recruitment rules framed by them. So far as the post of Part Time Sweeper is concerned recruitment in respect of that post is to be made by a selection by way of interview from the list of candidates advised by the local employment exchange. W.P ( C) No.32566 of 2008 3 Exhibit R2 (a) is the copy of recruitment rules framed by the 1st respondent. It is pointed out that apprehending termination of various Part Time Sweepers who were engaged in different branches had approached this Court seeking for regularization in service. Exhibits R2 (b) (c ) (d) are copies of judgments in O.P. Nos.29871 of 2001 and connected cases. Ultimately, the Government framed a scheme for regularization as per Exhibit R2 (f). The same is dated 20.12.2005. According to the said scheme a direction was issued to regularize the services of 170 Part Time Sweepers engaged by the 1st respondent between 30.10.2000 and 31.8.2005. It is also pointed out that after the scheme was framed, there was a complaint raised by one Viswambaran before the Lok Ayuktha, complaining about the irregularities in the matter of regularization. 3. The counter affidavit shows that the person named Smt.Saleela is also a beneficiary of Exhibit R2 (f) Government Order. Even though she commenced service only on 31.10.2005 and is junior to the petitioner, she stands benefited by Exhibit R2 (f) Government Order. W.P ( C) No.32566 of 2008 4 Seeking for the benefit of said Government Order, she had approached this Court by filing WPC No.11923 of 2006 wherein, by interim order dated 28.4.2006 marked as Exhibit R2 (g), this Court directed the 1st respondent to accommodate the petitioner as Part-time Sweeper-cum Sanitation worker either in the Head Office or in any of the branches of the respondent therein. Accordingly, she was permitted to join duty. This writ petition was subsequently disposed of by Exhibit R2(h) whereby the matter has been closed as infructuous. 4. This is a case where petitioner is not benefited by the Scheme for regularization covered as per Exhibit R2 (f). It is true that person named Saleela who commenced service at a later point of time than the petitioner was benefited by Exhibit R2 (f). Any way, the petitioner is not challenging the order of regularization in favour of the said person in this writ petition. Therefore, I am not called upon to decide the validity of Exhibit R2 (f) as far as the inclusion of the said person is concerned. W.P ( C) No.32566 of 2008 5 5. I am concerned only with the right, if any, for regularization of the petitioner. As the 1st respondent is bound to implement Exhibit R2 (f) only, they cannot be faulted in the matter and the non-grant of regularization is because of absence of any other scheme with regard to persons like the petitioner. Any fresh recruitment by the 1st respondent can only be done in accordance with the recruitment rules framed by the Government. 6. In that view of the matter, petitioner is not entitled for any relief in this writ petition and the same is dismissed. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner may be allowed to move the Government for appropriate reliefs in the matter. The said remedy is left open. (T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No.32566 of 2008 6 W.P ( C) No.32566 of 2008 7