IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 7TH JANUARY 2010 / 17TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 37237 of 2009(Y) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- 1. JOHN P.T., PERUMATTIKUNNEL HOUSE, KODANCHERRY P.O., KOZHIKODE-673 580. 2. SAJESH K., KODAKKAT HOUSE, CHOMBALA P.O., VADAKARA-673 308. 3. K.K.REGIMON, KALLUMMOOLA HOUSE, THAMBALAMANNA P.O., THIRUVAMBADY, KOZHIKODE-673 603. 4. MURALEEDHARAN T.R., THAZHERAYORATH, PONMERI PARAMBIL P.O., VILLIAPPALLI, VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE-673 542. 5. N.T.K.ABOOBACKER, N.T.K.HOUSE, KANNOOKKARA P.O., VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE. 6. RATHEESH KUMAR A., AMBIDATTIL HOUSE, MADAPPALLY COLLEGE P.O., VATAKARA-673 102. BY ADV. SRI.B.PREMNATH (E) RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. WP(C).No. 37237 of 2009 3. THE STATE COMMISSIONER FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES, STATE OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, ANNEXE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J --------------------------------- WP(C) NO.37237 OF 2009 ------------------------------ Dated this the 7th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioners are physically handicapped persons who have worked in various Government departments as provisional employees during various periods. They have been terminated during the year 1995-1996. They had been employed through Employment Exchanges and were terminated at the end of the period of their engagement. As per Ext.P1, Government Order, the Government has directed reinstatement of physically handicapped provisional employees who worked during the periods 1.1.1997 to 15.8.1999. By another Government Order dated 09.08.2007, physically handicapped provisional employees who were appointed during the period from 15.8.1998 to 15.8.1999 were also ordered to be reappointed. The petitioners seek similar treatment. They had filed WP(c).No.12177/2009 before this court and by Ext.P5 judgment dated 8.4.2009, the second respondent was directed to consider and pass orders after considering the grievances of petitioners. Accordingly, the Government has passed Ext.P7 order. The petitioners challenge Ext.P7 order in this writ petition. WP(C) NO.37237/09 2 2. According to the counsel for the petitioner, discrimination on the basis of the particular period during which persons have got provisional employment, for the purpose of regularisation, amounted to discrimination and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. Therefore, the petitioners pray for quashing of Ext.P7 order and seek reinstatement in service. 3. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader who appears for the Government. I have considered the rival contentions. 4. Admittedly, the writ petitioners were all provisional employees who were recruited through Employment Exchanges. They were also terminated on the completion of their respective terms of engagement. It is settled law that the provisional employees so terminated have no right for any further appointment or regularisation. Therefore the question as to whether the services of such provisional employees are to be regularised or not is one that would depend on a Policy decision. Ext.P1 Government order also takes notice of the above fact. Since the Policy of the Government is what has been reflected in WP(C) NO.37237/09 3 Ext.P1, the petitioners have no right to claim reemployment. As per the existing Rules and regulations the Government has found that the request of the petitioners could not be granted. I find no reasons to interfere with the Government order. The remedy of the petitioner is to persuade the Government to change its Policy. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE. sou.