IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2011/17TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 W.P.C. No. 32708 of 2011 (K) ========================= PETITIONER =========== RUGMINI, AGED 51 YEARS, D/O.BALAKRISHNA PANICKER, MELEPPURATHU, KADAMBAZHYPURAM P.O., PALAKKADU. BY ADV.SRI.B.PRAMOD RESPONDENTS ============== 1 THE MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, KOZHIKODE-673 020 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 2 THE COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, KOZHIKODE-673 020. 3 THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, THE MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD SRI.VAYILIAMKUNNU BHAGAWATHY TEMPLE KATAMPAZHIPURAM PALAKKAD DISTRICT- 678 001. BY ADV. SRI.R.LAKSHMI NARAYANAN,SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-12-2011 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: DST W.P.C. No. 32708 of 2011 (K) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT. P1 : COPY OF THE INITIAL APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 30.06.2001 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. EXT. P2 : COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED NIL SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT. P3 : COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 02.12.2002 ISSUED BY THE DEVASWOM EXECUTIVE OFFICER. EXT. P4 : COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 19.12.2002 ISSUED BY THE DEVASWOM EXECUTIVE OFFICER. EXT. P5 : COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 06.09.2007 ISSUED BY THE DEVASWOM EXECUTIVE OFFICER. EXT. P6 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 08.09.2007 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT. P7 : COPY OF THE RECOMMENDATION LETTER 22.09.2007 SEND BY THE DEVASWOM EXECUTIVE OFFICER. EXT. P8 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 28.06.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT. P9 : COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 14.02.2011 IN W.P.(C) NO. 4661/2011 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT. P10 : COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.08.2011 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE DST K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J = = = = = = = = = = = = = WP(C).No.32708 of 2011-K. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 8th December, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking appointment with effect from the date of her first appointment as Sweeper in a temple under the management of the respondents. According to the petitioner, she was working as a sweeper in the temple concerned from 1.7.2001 onwards, continuously. Since there was a vacancy of Sweeper available there, the petitioner had submitted Ext.P2 application on the basis of which she was appointed to the said post on 30.6.2001 on provisional basis. It was thus that she initially entered service. Thereafter, as per Ext.P3 notification dated 2.12.2002 though applications were invited to the said post, the petitioner was the only applicant. Therefore, her name was recommended for appointment to the post. However, it took five years for the WP(C).No.32708/2011-K. 2 appointment order to be issued by the respondents. Consequently, the petitioner has been appointed only with effect from 27.7.2007. 2. Since the petitioner had been working continuously on provisional basis from 1.7.2001 onwards, she has submitted Exts.P6 and P8 representations seeking benefit of the past service that she has put in. The third respondent has also recommended her case for favourable consideration by Ext.P7 letter. In spite of the above, when no orders were passed, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing WP(C).No.4661/2011 which was disposed of by Ext.P9 judgment directing that her representation be considered. Accordingly, Ext.P10 order has been passed on her representation after hearing her. As per Ext.P10, the petitioner's request has been rejected. The petitioner has filed this writ petition, seriously aggrieved by Ext.P10. 3. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has been seriously prejudiced by the delay on the WP(C).No.32708/2011-K. 3 part of the respondents in issuing her order of appointment as a permanent employee. Five long years were consumed by the process, during which period though she had actually worked, her service is reckoned only as provisional service. This, in spite of the fact that the petitioner had already been selected and recommended for permanent appointment. Therefore, the petitioner complains that merely for the delay in issuing her a formal order of appointment, she has been denied the benefit of five long years of continuous service, though she had been discharging the very same duties and responsibilities as that of a permanent employee. Therefore, she seeks the issue of appropriate directions to set aside Ext.P10 and to grant her appointment with effect from 19.12.2002. 4. I have also heard Sri.R.Lakshmi Narayan who appears for all the respondents. According to the counsel, the petitioner's case was considered properly after hearing the petitioner also and has been rejected. Since the WP(C).No.32708/2011-K. 4 petitioner has no right to claim the appointment, it is pointed out that she is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for in the writ petition. 5. It is true that the petitioner does not have a right to claim appointment with respect to any particular date anterior to her appointment. However, the delay in issuing an appointment order to her after having issued a notification inviting applications and conducted a selection process, remains unexplained. Though the petitioner had sought for appointment from an anterior date in her representation, Ext.P10 is also silent on this aspect. However, since Ext.P10 has considered the petitioner's representation and found that she is not entitled to appointment from an anterior date and since I do not find any infirmity with the said proceedings, I am not satisfied that the petitioner is entitled to any of the reliefs claimed in this writ petition. At the same time, the grievance of the petitioner that her service spread over a substantial period WP(C).No.32708/2011-K. 5 of five years has been reduced to mere provisional service by virtue of the inordinate delay in issuing her appointment order also cannot be dismissed as untenable. 6. Therefore, while dismissing this writ petition, the petitioner is granted the liberty to approach the first respondent by submitting a proper representation seeking the benefit of the provisional service that she has put in as stated above and seeking appropriate directions granting her the benefit of such service. If such a representation is filed, the same shall be considered and disposed of expeditiously. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, (Judge) Kvs/-