IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 18TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 32470 of 2008(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ E.V.RADHAKRISHNAN, MAHOUT ELEPHAT TRAINING CENTRE, KODANAD, ERNAKULLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN SRI.T.R.SADEESAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FOREST AND WILD LIFE DEPATMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIAVANDRUM. 2. THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS (WILD LIFE) TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, FOREST DEPARTMENT,MALAYATTUR. 4. THE RANGE OFFICER, FOREST DEPARTMENT KODANAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SMITHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.32470/08 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER ON 25.10.93. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIOENR ON 14.11.98. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF NEWS REPORT WHICH APPEARED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DT 28.9.91. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF NEWS REPORT WHICH APPEARED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DT 30.7.92. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.1-6849/81 DT 21.7.86 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DT 14.6.2000 IN OP NO.16633/2000 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF COVERING LETTER DT 20.6.2000 FORWARDING THE JUDGMENT TO RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 ONBEHALF OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF NOTICE SENT ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIOENR TO THE RESPODNENTS 1 AND 2 ON 11.10.2000. EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF NOTICE SENT ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIOERN TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 16.6.2000. EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DT 10.8.07 IN WPC NO.21261/05 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P11: TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.7498/F1/05/FOREST DT 24.1.2007 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXTS. OF R1 EXT.R1(a): GOVT. LETTER NO.10049/F1/2000/FLWLD DT 2.4.2001. EXT.R1(b): LR.NO.7498/F1/05/FLWLD DT 24.1.2007. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 32470 OF 2008 (M) ===================== Dated this the 9th day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner was appointed in the Kodanad Elephant Training Centre as a Training Mahout on daily wages from 1990. He refers to Exts.P1 and P2 certificates issued in 1993 and 1996 to support this averment. It is stated that by Ext.P5 order issued on 21/7/86, 11 Mahouts, similarly engaged, were regularised in service. 2. Subsequently, when his requests for regularisation were not favourably considered, petitioner approached this Court by filing OP No.16633/2000 contending that there was a proposal to regularise him based on the letter dated 8/7/98 issued by the DFO, Malayatoor and that he should be regularised on that basis. That OP was disposed of by Ext.P6 judgment rendered on 14/6/2000 directing the respondents therein to take a decision on the request of the petitioner for regularising his services. It is stated that this judgment was not complied with despite various requests made by the petitioner. Finally, he again had to approach this Court by filing WP(C) No.21261/05, which was also disposed of by Ext.P10 judgment directing that if orders pursuant WPC 32470/08 :2 : to Ext.P6 judgment were not passed before 29th of September, 2007, the petitioner shall be deemed to have been regularised as proposed by the DFO. 3. Petitioner contends that it was at that stage, he was issued Ext.P11 order dated 24/1/2007, purported to have been passed in compliance with the direction in Ext.P6 and declining his request for regularisation of his services. In Ext.P11, it is stated that he has been engaged on a daily basis and that method of recruitment or qualification have not been prescribed for the post of Mahouts. It is stated that in view of this, so long as he can continue to work in the post, he will be permitted to continue on daily wage basis. It is on receipt of Ext.P11, this writ petition was filed by the petitioner, praying to quash Ext.P11 and that he should be directed to be regularised in service. 4. Respondents have filed a counter affidavit disputing the averments in the writ petition. According to the respondents, though the petitioner was engaged on daily wage basis from 01/02/90, petitioner abandoned the work from 21/2/2002 for the reason that the elephant Sunny under his care was translocated WPC 32470/08 :3 : to Marayoor and he was unwilling to accompany the said elephant. It is stated that thereafter again the petitioner reported for work and was engaged afresh on daily wage basis from 2008 and that he is continuing on that basis. It is stated that the respondents had considered the claim of the petitioner for regularisation as ordered in Ext.P6 judgment and passed Ext.P11 order, which was also communicated to the petitioner. 5. In this writ petition, what is sought for by the petitioner is regularisation of his services. Admittedly, the petitioner has no case that method of recruitment had been fixed or that qualifications have been prescribed. On the other hand, all that he contends is that since by Ext.P5, 11 persons were regularised, his services also should be regularised. 6. In the absence of prescribed qualifications or methods of qualification for the post, even if there are sanctioned vacant posts as contended by the petitioner, still this Court will not be justified in directing regularisation of the petitioner's services straight away. In my view, at this stage what is reasonable to order is to direct the respondents to discontinue the adhoc WPC 32470/08 :4 : system of appointments and frame recruitment rules incorporating the method of recruitment and also other qualifications, and on that basis, consider the case of the petitioner for regularisation/ absorption. 7. True, the counsel for the petitioner contends that he is entitled to be regularised in view of the directions of the Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi {(2006) 4 SCC 1}. True, in para 53 of that judgment the Apex Court directed that qualified employees who are working in sanctioned posts for periods more than 10 years should be considered for regularisation. However, in so far as the petitioner is concerned, although he had more than 10 years service, he abandoned the job in 2002 and was again engaged afresh only in 2008. If that be so, I am not prepared to hold that the petitioner is eligible for the benefit of the direction in para 53 of the aforesaid judgment. 8. Therefore, the only direction that is possible in this case is that the respondents should frame rules for regular appointment to the post of Mahout containing the method of recruitment and qualifications. This shall be done by the WPC 32470/08 :5 : respondents as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within three months of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Once the aforesaid process is completed, the respondents shall consider the case of the petitioner for regularisation/absorption in accordance with law. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp