IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH OCTOBER 2009 / 6TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 1585 of 2009(L) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.SAROJINI D/O.KANNAN, 45 YEARS, WORKING AS A CHOOK, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE OLD AGE HOME, THEVARA,, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE SRI.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL WELFARE SOCIAL WELFARE OFFICE, VIKAS BHAVAN, TRIVANDRUM. 2. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE, REP. BY SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. MS.ANU SIVARAMAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.1585/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF PROCEEDINGS NO.E6-21192/99 DATED 5/7/2000 ISSUED BY R1. P2 : COPY OF PROCEEDINGS NO.E6-13744/01/K.DISDATED 11/6/2001. P3 : COPY OF NOTICE DATED 01/01/2009 ISSUED BY R1. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. jg ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------ WP(C) No.1585 of 2009 -------------------------- Dated, this the 28th day of October, 2009 ------------------------------ J U D G M E N T In response to a requisition made to the District Employment Exchange, Kasaragod, the petitioner's name was sponsored for the post of Cook in the Old Age Home of the Social Welfare Department at Kasaragod. She was selected and was appointed to that post with effect from 17/06/1999. Though the appointment was temporary, she continued in that post, and subsequently by Ext.P1 order dated 05/07/2000, the 1st respondent, the Head of the Department, ordered regularisation of her appointment with effect from 17/06/1999. 2. A reading of this order shows that the regularisation was ordered on the basis of the recommendation of the Superintendent of the Old Age Home, who also confessed that it was on account of a mistake committed by him that despite the fact that the Director is the appointing authority, he ordered appointment of the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner continued in service, and Ext.P2 WP(C) No.1585/2009 -2- certificate issued on 11/06/2001 shows that she had completed probation satisfactorily. 3. While continuing in service as above, the 1st respondent issued Ext.P3, which is styled as a notice, stating that one Mr.P.P.Chandran made a complaint to the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, and that the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau on enquiry found that there were irregularities in the appointment of the petitioner. It is stated that based on the report submitted by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, it has been decided to terminate the services of the petitioner, and on that basis, she was called upon to show cause why her services shall not be terminated. It is on receipt of this communication, that this writ petition has been filed. 4. At the stage of admission, this Court granted a stay of further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P3, and that the position continued even now. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent. It is stated that the post of Cook, against which the petitioner was appointed, was a permanent post, and the mode of appointment is WP(C) No.1585/2009 -3- through Employment Exchange. It is stated that the petitioner was initially appointed on a temporary basis, and that later on considering the request made by the petitioner, the temporary appointment was regularised by the Director of Social Welfare. It is also stated that a complaint was received from one Shri.P.P.Chandran, who was a candidate appeared for interview for the post of Cook in the subsequent list submitted by the Employment Exchange. It is stated that in the enquiry, certain procedural irregularities were found in as much as prior to the appointment, the Superintendent of the Old Age Home did not take steps to make a Statewide circulation of the vacancy through the Employment Exchange to collect a list of eligible candidates. It is stated that on the basis of the Vigilance report, the Government found that the appointment of the petitioner was irregular, and on that basis, it was decided to terminate her services. 6. A reading of the counter affidavit would therefore show that it was on account of the irregularities committed either by the Superintendent of the Old Age Home or the Director of the Social Welfare Department that the appointment of the petitioner is WP(C) No.1585/2009 -4- decided to be terminated. The respondents have no case that the post was not a permanent one or that the petitioner was not sponsored by the Employment Exchange or that the petitioner was ineligible or unsuitable for the post in question. In such a situation, in my view, even if irregularities have been committed by the departmental authorities, the right course to be adopted by the respondents is to proceed against the Officers, who committed irregularities, and not to make the appointee a scape goat by ordering termination. In this case, this is precisely what is happened, and for that reason, I am inclined to think that the proceedings resulting in Ext.P3, cannot be sustained. Ext.P3, therefore, will stand set aside. But, however, this judgment will not stand in the way of the respondents in initiating proceedings against the officers, who are responsible for the alleged irregularities resulting in Ext.P3. This writ petition is allowed as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg