IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2009 / 1ST MAGHA 1930 WA.No. 1339 of 2007 --------------------- ( AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.5527/2007 Dated 20/02/2007) .................... APPELLANT/ PETITIONER ---------------------------- K.NIRMALAKUMARI, D.T.P.OPERATOR, INFORMATION AND PUBLIC RELATIONS DEPARTMENT GOVT.SECRETARIATE, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SMT.S.KARTHIKA RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA. REP.BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, INFORMATION AND PUBLIC RELATIONS DEPARTMENT GOVT.SECRETARIATE,TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DIRECTOR, INFORMATION AND PUBLIC RELATIONS DEPARTMENT GOVT.SECRETARIATE, TRIVANDRUM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. SHRI BENNY GERVASIS THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: KURIAN JOSEPH & P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JJ. ........................................................................ W.A. No.1339 OF 2007 ......................................................................... Dated this the 21st January, 2009 J U D G M E N T Kurian Joseph, J. : The appellant is the petitioner in the Writ Petition. She is aggrieved by Ext.P10 order rejecting her request for regularisation. The said order was challenged in Writ Petition (C)No.5527 of 2007 which was dismissed by the judgment under appeal. 2. The short facts of the case: The appellant/petitioner was engaged on daily wage basis as DTP operator in the Information and Public Relations Department w.e.f. 16.06.1996. A post of DTP operator in the Information and Public Relations Department was sanctioned only w.e.f. 17.08.1998. Inviting reference to Exts. P1 and P2, it is submitted that the petitioner has in fact worked as DTP operator on daily wage basis from June, 1996 onwards. Ext.P2 would indicate that she had worked W.A. No.1339 OF 2007 2 for a few days in every month from June, 1996 onwards. An experience certificate has also been issued by the Director of Information and Public Relations Department to the effect that she has been working as DTP operator since June, 1996. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Others vs. Umadevi & Others ( AIR 2006 SUPREME COURT 1806), the relevant portion (paragraph No. 44) is extracted below: “xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a one time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts xx xx xx xx.” In Ext. P10 order it is stated that the engagement of the petitioner on daily wages had been taken into account only with W.A. No.1339 OF 2007 3 effect from the date of sanctioning of the post, i.e. from 17.08.1998. According to the petitioner ever since her engagement as DTP operator on daily wage basis, the post should be deemed to have been created since the service of the petitioner was actually utilised by the Public Relations Department based on Ext. P1 note. 3. Learned Senior Government Pleader submits that so far the qualification and method of appointment in respect of the post of DTP operator has not been prescribed and hence the question of regularisation does not arise. It is further submitted that the relied on decision ( Umadevi's case) is of no help to the petitioner since the petitioner does not come under the purview of the said decision. It is submitted that the said decision is applicable only to those who have worked against a sanctioned post for over 10 years and that such regularisation is only a one time measure. 4. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant however W.A. No.1339 OF 2007 4 submits that the Government had not strictly adhered to the length of service of 10 years. Reference is invited to Annexures -A1 and A2 , wherein one Sapru who was working as Peon on daily wage basis in the Kerala House, New Delhi was regularised in service. It is submitted that the said incumbent had not even completed four years. In answer to the said contention, the learned Government Pleader submitted that it was in exigency of service in the Kerala House, New Delhi, the said order was passed. 5. Be that as it may. It is seen that Annexure -A2 had been passed prior to Umadevi's case. The question is whether the petitioner would come within the purview of Umadevi's case. It is seen from Ext. P5 order dated 17.08.1998 that the creation of the post itself was only on 17.08.1998. Ext. P2 would indicate that the engagement of the appellant/petitioner was not uninterrupted. Only in case the petitioner has worked continuously against a sanctioned post for over 10 years as on W.A. No.1339 OF 2007 5 the date of Umadevi's case, the question of claim for regularisation would arise. Those conditions are apparently not satisfied. Therefore, the respondents cannot be compelled to regularise the appellant/petitioner in the light of Umadevi's case. In that view of the matter, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment. The Writ Appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed. KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk