IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 29TH MAY 2008 / 8TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 7685 of 2008(M) ------------------------- PETITIONERS: -------------------- 1. DISA SANKAR,D/O. SHANKARA NARAYANAN NAIR AGED 21 YEARS,STORE ISSUER, KSRTC,ATTINGAL AND RESIDING AT CHIRATHALAKKAL VEEDU T.B.JUNCTION, ATTINGAL. 2. SMIJA RANI, R.I.,D/O.P.RAVEENDRAKURUP AGED 21 YEARS, STORE ISSUER, KSRTC,ATTINGAL AND RESIDING AT SREYAS, POZHIKKARA, S.PARAVOOR, KOLLAM. 3. SMITHA GEORGE,D/O.K.GEORGEKUTTTY AGED 22 YEARS,STORE ISSUER, KSRTC,KOTTARAKKARA AND RESIDING AT ROSE HOUSE, KOTTARA, MEEYANOOR P.O.,KOLLAM. 4. SHEEBA KUMARI.M.,D/O.N.MURALEEDHARAN PILLAI,AGED 24 YEARS,STORE ISSUER,KSRTC, KOTTARAKKARA AND RESIDING AT PERUVELIL THUNDIL VEEDU, THEVALAPPURAM P.O., PUTHUR VIA KOTTARAKKARA,KOLLAM. 5. S.R.CHITHRALEKHA,W/O. MANOJ M.NARI AGED 25 YEARS, STORE ISSUER,KSRTC,POOVAR AND RESIDING AT MADHAVA VILASAM BUNGLAW, MUTTAKKADU, PERUMPAZHATHU P.O.,NEYYATTINKARA (VIA) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.N.UNNIKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP. BY TH CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR. BY SC SRI. K. PRABHAKARAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WP.(C) No.7685 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 29th day of May, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioners were appointed under the dying-in-harness scheme as Store Issuer. They are aggrieved by the denial of appointment as Lower Division Clerks. They filed representations also. They alleged discrimination. According to them some were appointed as L.D.Clerks. It is their case that they are qualified to be appointed and it is stated that some of the persons appointed are not having SSLC qualification. They seek a declaration that the petitioners are entitled to be appointed as LDC/Jr.Assistants with same pay scale. They seek a direction to pass necessary orders in the light of prayer No.2 and to take a decision on Exts.P7 to P10 representations. It is their case that educational qualifications for the posts are same and they ought to have been offered the post having same scale of pay with that of LDC/Jr.Assistants/Conductors. They state that though there was a promise to appoint them as LDC/Jr.Assistants as and when vacancies arise, nothing is done. It is stated that they are ladies and they are compelled to work under serious risks in the absence of proper lock can key system of materials. WPC.7685/2008. 2 2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent points out that the issue has received the attention of this court in O.P.12796 of 2001. Therein, a learned Single Judge took the view after referring to the decision of the Apex Court rejected the claim of the petitioners therein. After going through the judgment, I feel that the case of the petitioners has to be concluded by the said judgment. Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the judgment are extracted below: “6. Standing counsel for the respondent submits that petitioners were appointed as Attender Gr.II in the absence of vacancies in the post of Lower Division Clerks. Ext.P2 is the guideline issued by the Government prescribing norms for considering the claims of persons falling under the dying in harness scheme. Specific reference is made to Clause 24 of Ext.P2 wherein it is stated that offer for appointment or application for appointment can be altered in order to suit the convenience of candidates. But once appointment is accepted no such change shall be allowed. Counsel for the Corporation has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Umrao Sing [(1994) 6 SCC 560] and State of Haryana v. Naresh Kumar Bali [(1994) 4 SCC 448). The dictum laid down in the decision makes it clear that once offer of appointment to a particular post made under the dying in harness scheme is accepted by the candidate, the applicant's rights get consumated and no other consideration on compassionate WPC.7685/2008. 3 grounds would further arise. In Naresh Kumar Bali's case (supra) Supreme Court pointed out that the proper direction for the High Court to issue was to consider the claim for appointment under the dying in harness scheme and not to direct the employer to appoint the claimant against a particular post. 7. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the request of the petitioners is to reappoint them as Lower Division Clerks and the same does not involve substantial change in their status. I do not find any scope for making such a distinction in the matter of compassionate appointment. As far as the facts of this case are concerned, the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Umrao Singh squarely applies. In the absence of agreement between the management and the trade unions of the Corporation to the effect that persons who were appointed as Store Attender Gr.II will be given appointment as Lower Division Clerk, petitioners cannot claim as of right that they should be reappointed as Lower Division Clerks. Reliance placed on Ext.P4 may not be of avail to the petitioners since what was agreed to between the management and the trade union was that the Corporation will examine claims of candidates under the dying in harness scheme. There is no specific agreement to the effect that the Corporation will allow such requests for reappointment made by candidates already appointed in the lower posts.” WPC.7685/2008. 4 3. I find that the learned Judge also did take note of the heart burn to consider the question as to whether they could be appointed atleast from prospective dates. I find that the learned Judge found that the qualifications came to be amended in the year 2004. In the light of the judgment no purpose will be served even if I direct the consideration of the representation. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. (K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE) sb