IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 2ND MARCH 2010 / 11TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 26988 of 2008(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- C.MURALEEDHARAN PILLAI, RESIDING AT PALATHITTA VEEDU, VALAKAM P.O., KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM. (FORMALY JUNIOR ASSISTANT, KERALA TRANSPORT DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM). BY ADV. SRI.ANIL K.NARENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE KERALA TRANSPORT DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD., LEVEL 8TH (6TH FLOOR), TRANS TOWERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 14, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. BY ADVS. SRI.KRB.KAIMAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R2 SRI.B.UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL FOR R2 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. ANTONY MUKKATH FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: Ext.P1: True copy of G.O.(MS) No. 15/2006 dated 22.2.2006. Ext.P2: True copy of the order dated 23.2.2006 of the 2nd respondent. Ext.P3: True copy of G.O.(MS) No.4/2007 dated 12.2.2007. Ext.P4: True copy of G.O.(MS) No.366/2007 dated 10.9.2007. Ext.P5: True copy of order dated 12.9.2007 of the 2nd respondent. Ext.P6: True copy of the judgment of this Honourable Court dated 2.4.2008 in W.A. No. 682 of 2008. Ext.P7: True copy of letter dated 20.6.2007 of the Principal Secretary to Government Planning and Economic Affairs (PESB) Department. Ext.P8: True copy of the 2nd respondent's reply dated 16.8.2007. Ext.P9: True copy of petitioner's representation dated 16.4.2008 before the 1st respondent. Ext.P10: True copy of communication dated 24.5.2008 of the 1st respondent, rejecting the request made in Exhibit P9. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO.26988 OF 2008 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a physically handicapped person with amputated right hand below elbow with 40% disability. This Writ Petition has been filed mainly with the following prayers: (i) call for the records leading to Exhibit P10 communication issued by the 1st respondent and issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction quashing the same; (ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the respondents to regularise the appointment of the petitioner as Junior Assistant in the Kerala Transport Development Finance Corporation Ltd., as a physically handicapped person, forthwith; 2. The petitioner was earlier appointed as Junior Assistant in the Kerala Transport Development Finance Corporation Ltd., with effect from 17.8.2004 on daily wage basis. At that point of time, the entire appointments under the Corporation were made either on contract basis or on daily wage basis. Subsequently, the Government accorded sanction for regularisation of 106 contract/daily wage employees as per Ext.P1 dated 22.2.2006. Subsequently, those persons including the petitioner were W.P.(C) NO.26988/2008 2 regularised in service. Thereafter, as per Ext.P3order dated 12.2.2007, Ext.P1 order was cancelled. Challenging Ext.P3 order, the petitioner and other similarly situated persons, who were the beneficiaries of Ext.P1 order, approached this Court by filing W.P.(C).No.503/2007 and connected cases. As per a common judgment dated 13.7.2007, this Court quashed Ext.P3 order as it was passed violating the principles of natural justice. However, liberty was granted to the Government to pass fresh orders in the matter, after affording an opportunity of being heard to all the affected parties. Thereafter, Ext.P4 order dated 10.9.2007 was passed cancelling the regularisation of all those employees including that of the petitioner. Subsequently, the second respondent issued Ext.P5 order whereby the petitioner and all other similarly situated persons were terminated from its service. Challenging the said order of termination, the petitioner and other similarly situated persons approached this Court by filing W.P.(C).No.27782/2007 and connected cases. These Writ Petitions were dismissed as per a common judgment dated 7.11.2007. The petitioner preferred Writ Appeal No.682 of 2008 against the said judgment dated 7.11.2007. The contention of the petitioner is that while dismissing the Writ Appeal preferred by the petitioner and other similarly situated persons, the request of the petitioner seeking regularisation on the ground of his being a physically handicapped person was protected. The W.P.(C) NO.26988/2008 3 further contention of the petitioner is that by virtue of Ext.P7, he is entitled to get regularisatrion. The respondents have filed counter affidavits without refuting the claims and contentions of the petitioner. According to the respondents, the claim of the petitioner for regularisation based on Ext.P7 is absolutely untenable. In fact, Ext.P7 does not provide for any regularisation. It was issued for a totally different purpose. Firstly, for the purpose of identifying the vacancies against which physically handicapped persons could be appointed and secondly for the purpose of ascertaining the number of physically handicapped persons working under different public sector undertakings. A perusal of Ext.P7 would reveal that the said details were not called for the purpose of regularising the service of the the petitioner and other similarly situated persons. In short, a scanning of Ext.P7 would reveal that there is nothing in it and it would not sustain the contention of the petitioner that he is entitled for regularisation. In Ext.P6 judgment, what was reserved is only a right if any available to the petitioner. The petitioner has not succeeded in establishing that he is entitled to get regularisation under the second respondent. As already held, Ext.P7 does not confer any right on the petitioner to claim regularisation. If that be so, the observations made in Ext.P6 judgment cannot save the situation for the petitioner. In view of the discussions, I am of the view that the petitioner has not made out any case for getting a relief sought in this Writ Petition and it is W.P.(C) NO.26988/2008 4 liable to fail. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO.26988/2008 5 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. W.P.(C). NO.26988/2008 JUDGMENT 2nd March, 2010