IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 15TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 3243 of 2011(E) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- K.E.SHANAVAS, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O. LATE IBRAHIMKUTTY, MANAGER (WELFARE)(ON DEPUTATION), THE KERALA MINERALS AND METALS LTD.,SANKARAMANGALAM, CHAVARA-691 583, KOLLAM, KERALA,RESIDING AT KOTTACKATTU, EDAKULANGARA P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEWS RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE, KERALA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.695001 2. THE KERALA MINERALS AND METALS LTD., SANKARAMANGALAM, CHAVARA-691 583, KOLLAM, KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 3. CHAIRMAN, THE KERALA MINERALS AND METALS LTD., SANKARAMANGALAM, CHAVARA-691 583, KOLLAM, KERALA. 4. DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (P & A), THE KERALA MINERALS AND METALS LTD., SANKARAMANGALAM, CHAVARA-691 583, KOLLAM, KERALA. 5. BINDU V.C., LABOUR WELFARE OFFICER, TRAVANCORE TITANIUM PRODUCTS LIMITED, KOCHUVELI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 021. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. SANDESH RAJA BY ADV. SRI. B.S. KRISHNAN, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: SMT S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.3243 OF 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of February, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is working as Manager (Welfare) on deputation under the second respondent. He is borne on the service of the Prisons Department of the Government of Kerala as Welfare Officer (Higher Grade). Initially, he was sent on deputation by the Government to the second respondent Company by Ext.P1 order dated 31.1.2009. Although the petitioner wanted to go back to his parent department, by Ext.P2 order dated 15.7.2009, the Government asked him to continue on deputation till the period of deputation expired. Thereafter, by Ext.P3, his deputation period was extended and the extended deputation period expires today. Now the petitioner wants to continue on deputation. According to the petitioner, all the authorities including the second respondent and the superior officer of the petitioner in the service of the Government of Kerala have already signified their agreement for continuing the W.P.(C)No.3243/11 2 deputation of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the present action not to extend the period of deputation of the petitioner is only to favour the fifth respondent which spells of malafides on the part of the first respondent. The petitioner, therefore, seeks the following reliefs: “i. Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding respondents 1 to 4 to extend the period of deputation to the petitioner for one more year on the basis of Exhibits P5 to P7. ii. Declare that petitioner is entitled to continue as Welfare Officer of Kerala Minerals and Metals Ltd., Chavara, Kollam for one more year based on Exhibits P5 to P7. iii. Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 2nd respondent to take further necessary action on Exhibit P7. iv. Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding respondents 1 to 4 to conduct a transparent and fair selection process for appointment to the post of Welfare Officer under the second respondent and to permit the petitioner to continue in the post of Welfare Officer till a proper appointment is made”. 2. I directed the learned Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent to get instructions. The learned Government Pleader seeks further time to get instructions. The learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent Company submits that the second respondent Company has no intention to continue to operate the post on deputation and they have decided to make direct recruitment to the post. W.P.(C)No.3243/11 3 3. I have considered the rival contentions of the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent. The petitioner has no right to continue on deputation indefinitely. It is for the Government to decide whether the deputation of the petitioner is to be continued or not. When the second respondent themselves have now decided to make regular appointment to the post by direct recruitment, I do not think that the petitioner can, on the grounds raised, seek a direction to respondents 1 to 4 to continue the deputation of the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(C)No.3243/11 4 W.P.(C)No.3243/11 5