IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 19TH OCTOBER 2010 / 27TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 35327 of 2008(E) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. VILASINI.M, W/O. BALAKRISHNAN, MALAMMAL HOUSE, CHELAVOOR.P.O, KOZHIKODE. 2. MEENA.E, W/O.K.T. BHASKARAN, ANGOLIVAYAL HOUSE, IRINGADANALLI, CHEVAYUR.P.O, KOZHIKODE. 3. SATHEESHKUMAR.T.S, S/O. SUBRAMONIAN, TACHILOT PARAMBA, KALLAI.P.O, KOZHIKODE. 4. V.K. HARIDASAN, S/O. GOVINDANKUTTY NAIR, VALLIYEKATTIL HOUSE, KOTTAMPARAMBU.P.O, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT IN GOVERNMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE DIRECTOR, INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT IN GOVERNMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, REGIONAL CENTRE, INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT IN GOVERNMENT, IMG CAMPUS, KOZHIKODE. R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV.SRI.SANDESH RAJA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/10 /2010 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY THE DELIVEREDTHE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 35327/2008-E APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 11/1/96. P2 COPY OF THE EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 1/9/07. P3 COPY OF THE EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD PETITIONER DATED 30/7/05. P4 COPY OF THE EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH PETITIONER DATED 15/11/2008. P5 COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 7/4/2000. P6 COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 31/7/2008. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO.JUDGE sts T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.35327/2008-E ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 19th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioners herein have been engaged by the third respondent as Sweeper and Sweeper-cum-Scavenger on daily wage basis. The first petitioner was disengaged in 1995 and the second petitioner in 2005. The third petitioner was working as Gardner from 2005 and has been engaged intermittently. The fourth petitioner is working as Gardner from 2003 onwards. 2. They are aggrieved by Ext.P6 whereby proposals are made for appointing persons from Employment Exchange. One post each of Sweeper and Gardner were reported to Employment Exchange. 3. It is contended that the petitioners are entitled for continuance in the light of their long tenure in the service of the third respondent. Accordingly, it is prayed that the respondents may be directed to regularise them in service. 4. The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit. It is averred that the daily wage appointment is only on a casual basis for the smooth functioning of the office. All the appointments have to be approved by the Government of Kerala as per Clause 431(xiv) of the W.P.(C). No.35327/2008 -:2:- Memorandum of Association. The Governing Body by its decision dated 07/12/2007 resolved to decline the request for regularisation of the petitioners. There is a decision by the Government to bring all the appointments in the purview of the Kerala Public Service Commission. It is mainly pleaded that persons like petitioners had to be engaged in view of the immediate requirement. No selection procedure was followed before their engagement also. 3. Accordingly, it is pointed out that the engagement from Employment Exchange was resorted to as it is the known legal method. 4. In the light of the above stand taken by the respondents, I do not find anything wrong in issuance of Ext.P6. There is no impediment to engage persons through Employment Exchange. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that in the light of the decision reported in Mercy v. State of Kerala [2004 (2) KLT 848] and the Order, G.O.(P).No.501/2005/Fin, dated 25/11/2005, they have got a claim for absorption as Sweeper etc. Evidently, that aspect has not been examined by the Government or IMG. It is open to the petitioners to file a representation in this matter and if such a representation is filed, the same will also be examined by the competent W.P.(C). No.35327/2008 -:3:- authority and appropriate orders will be passed and communicated to the petitioners. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms