IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 22ND MARCH 2010 / 1ST CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 9536 of 2010(N) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. DR.SINI THOMAS, AGED 35 YEARS, NARALIVILAYIL, SRP MARKET.P.O, THAZHAVA, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. DR.SREEDEVI BOSE.S.K, AGED 42 YEARS, SREE BHAVAN, AMRITHAPURI POST, KOLLAM. BY ADVS.MR.J.JAYAKUMAR MR.S.JIJI RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEAPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE STATE MISSION DIRECTOR, NATIONAL RURAL HEALTH MISSION, DIRECTORATE OF HEALTH SERVICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NIRMAN BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110 001. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.ANTONY MUKKATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J ---------------------- W.P.(C.) No.9536 of 2010 --------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of March 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioners claim to be Homoeo Medical Gradutes. A walk-in-interview was conducted by the 2nd respondent for appointment of Homoeo Doctors on contract basis. On 28.1.2008 on the basis of the walk-in-interview, a ranklist was published, in which both graduates as well as diploma holders in Homoeopathy were included. The petitioners were also included in the list. Against the inclusion of diploma holders in the list some persons approached this Court and obtained Ext.P8 judgment for exclusion of diploma holders. Accordingly diploma holders were excluded and only graduates were appointed from the list. The petitioners now submit that they are entitled to be appointed to the vacancies existing from the said list and therefore the respondents should be directed to appoint the petitioners from that list. W.P.(C) No.9536 of 010 -2- 2. Admittedly the list is prepared not for regular recruitment. The petitioners do not have a right to be appointed on contract basis on the basis of a list prepared in January, 2008. Contract appointments have to be made as and when vacancy arises and the respondents intend to fill up the same by contract appointment, if exigencies arise. There cannot be any contract appointment from a ranklist prepared as if in a regular recruitment. I am of opinion that if vacancies arise, it is for the respondents to resort to regular recruitment following the procedure prescribed for making regular appointment instead of going on making appointments on contract basis. In any event, the petitioners do not have a right for appointment on contract basis which can be enforced in a writ petition. Accordingly this writ petition is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Jvt