IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH MARCH 2008 / 29TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 22023 of 2007(V) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------------- T.R.RADHAKRISHNAN, ANIMAL KEEPER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ZOO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CULTURAL DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR, MUSEUM & ZOO DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ZOO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.NANDAKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/03/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO: 22023/2007 V APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1. COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE SUPERINTENDENT, MESEUM & ZOO DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXT.P2. COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT. 8/4/05 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MINISTER FOR CULTURAL AFFAIRS. EXT.P3. COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 17/08/2005 BY THE R2. EXT.P4. COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 11/2/2006 BY THE R2. EXT.P5. COPY OF THE GOVT. ORDER GO MS NO. 27/2003 CAD DT. 14/7/2003. EXT.P6. COPY OF THE GO MS NO. 19/2005/CAD DT. 26/2/2005, BY THE R1. EXT.P7. COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT. 10/12/2006 BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R1. EXT.P8. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 23/2/2007 IN WPC NO. 6105/2007. EXT.P9. COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 61/21/B2/2005/CAD DT. 24/5/007 BY THE R1. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL. True copy tga V.GIRI,J. ========================= W.P.(C)NO.22023 OF 2007 ========================= Dated this the 19th day of March 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner submits that he has been working as an Animal Keeper on daily wage basis in the Thiruvananthapuram Zoo since 1993. Ext.P1 certificate is referred to by him to show that he has got zoo experience as Animal Keeper, on daily wages, for the last 10 years. He has proved his mettle and expertise in handling and looking after different varieties of monkeys and he has got special knowledge in that field. Taking note of this experience, the petitioner sought for regualrisation in the post of Animal Keeper. His request was recommended by the Director in Exts.P2, P3 and P4. Petitioner also referred to Exts.P5 and P6 orders passed by the Government in the case of two other persons in the Thiruvananthapuram zoo, who were directed to be appointed as full time animal keepers. Taking note of their earlier provisional service and their expertise, one in handling rare species of snakes and the other in handling Giraffes, petitioner's claim was directed to be considered by the W.P.(c)22023/2007 2 Government as per Ext.P8 judgment. Taking note of the observations and the Supreme Court judgment in the case of State of Kerala v Umadevi (2006(4) SCC 1), the claim was considered by the Government, but rejected under Ext.P9 which has been challenged in the writ petition. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. It is inter alia pointed out that the petitioner has intermittently worked on daily wages from 1993. Regularisation of daily wage workers will adversely affect the aspiration of the candidates, who have registered their names in the Employment Exchange. Petitioner claims experience in the field of looking after Monkeys for which there is no dearth of experienced keepers in the Zoo. Exts.P5 and P6 were issued in exceptional cases, when experienced Animal Keepers were lacking in the zoo to look after the deadly Venomous Cobra and the awesome Giraffe. The situation is different in the case of different varieties of Monkeys. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. The question is whether Ext.P9 order reveals any error of jurisdiction or illegality warranting interference by this Court. Admittedly, the petitioner has been W.P.(c)22023/2007 3 engaged only on daily wages. No doubt, he has acquired an expertise in handling different varieties of Monkeys, going by Exts.P3 and P4, but there is a method of appointment prescribed for the post in question as per the special rules. This Court cannot issue a direction to the Government to necessarily deviate from the rules for regularising the services of daily wage employees. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is situated on a par with the beneficiaries of Exts.P5 and P6. There is no reason why his expertise should not be taken into account. In my view, sufficient reasons have been given by the first respondent in paragraph-4 of the counter affidavit to justify a different treatment. At any rate, even if it is assumed that there is any illegality in Exts.P5 and P6 the same will not afford any enforceable right as far as the petitioner is concerned. For all these reasons, I do not find any reason to interfere with Ext.P9. But it is made clear that if the expertise of the petitioner in handling different varieties of Monkeys is found to be a benefit to the Zoo in Thiruvananthapuram or in any other Zoo coming under the Department of Zoos and Museums, then it is open to W.P.(c)22023/2007 4 the third respondent to avail the expertise of the petitioner. I also make it clear that the judgment will not stand in the way of the petitioner being considered as an Animal Keeper on daily wages and if the services of Animal Keepers are required, I am sure that the Director shall look into the previous experience of the petitioner as a factor in his favour. The writ petition is disposed of as above. V.GIRI, JUDGE css/