IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 1ST SEPTEMBER 2008 / 10TH BHADRA 1930 RP.No. 955 of 2008(M) in WP(C)25330/08 --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.25330/2008 Dated 25/08/2008 .................... REVIEW PE4TITIONER/RESPONDENTS 1&2 IN THE WP ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE REP.BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT TURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL LINES, KOLLAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.NANDAKUMAR RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS 1 TO 15 IN THE W.P ------------------------------------------- 1. SUSHAMA.S., LADY VILLAGE EXTENSION OFFICER (L.V.E.O.)MUGHATHALA BLOCK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. LEELABHAI B., LADY VILLAGE EXTENSION OFFICER (L.V.E.O.)ITTHIKARA BLOCK, KOLLAM DISTRICT 3. SALINI.C., LADY VILLAGE EXGENSION OFFICER (L.V.E.O.) SASTHAMKOTTA BLOCK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 4. VALSALA.R.LADY VILLAGE EXTENSION OFFICER (L.V.E.O) ANCHAL BLOCK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 5. SHEHUBANATH I, LADY VILLAGE EDTENSION OFFICER (L.V.E.O.)CHITTUMALA BLOCK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. RP 955/08 2 6. AMPILI R. LADY VILLAGE EXTENSION OFFICER (L.V.E.O)KOTTARAKKARA BLOCK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 7. SAJEENA A., LADY VILLAGE EXTENSION OFFICER, (L.V.E.O)ITHIKARA BLOCK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 8. JASNA BEEVI.J., LADY VILLAGE EXTENSION OFFICE (L.V.E.O.)ANCHAL BLOCK KOLLAM DISTRICT 9. SHYLAJAKUMARI AMMA, LADY VILLAGE EXTENSION OFFICER (L.V.E.O) CHITTUMALA BLOCK WEST KALLADA P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. 10. CHANDRASEKHARAN.T.N., VILLAGE EXTENSION OFFICER (VEO)ANCHAL BLOCK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 11. PRASAD G.S., VILLAGE EXTENSION OFFICER, (VEO) KARUNAGAPALLYBLOCK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 12. ANILKUMAR.M., VILLAGE EXTENSION OFFICER (VEO)ITHIKKARA BLOCK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 13. PRASANNAKUMAR.C., VILLAGE EXTENSION OFFICER, (VEO) ANCHAL BLOCK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 14. BIJU S., VILLAGE EXTENSION OFFICER, (VEO) ANCHAL BLOCK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 15. SAIRAM SUGUNAN, VILLAGE EXTENSION OFFICER, (VEO) ITHIKKARA BLOCK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI. KYLASANATH PILLAY SMT. SREEDEVI KYLASANATH THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 1/9/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.Ravindran, J. ================== R.P.No.955 of 2008 in W.P(C).No.25330 of 2008 ===================== Dated this the 1st day of September, 2008. ORDER Heard Sri.Nandakumar P., the learned Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners and Smt.Sreedevi Kylasanath, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/writ petitioners. The respondents in this Review Petition were appointed as Lady Village Extension Officer for a period of 179 days by Ext.P1 appointment order dated 22.2.2008. When their term of appointment was about to expire they moved the Secretary to Government, Rural Development Department, seeking continuance in service till regular hands recruited by the Public Service Commission join duty and thereafter filed W.P.(C) No.25330 of 2008 seeking the following reliefs: "(i) To direct the 2nd respondent to allow the petitioners to continue in service till regular appointments are made. (ii) To issue a writ of mandamus to the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P2 and similar representations and direct the 2nd respondent to allow the petitioners to continue in service till regular hands report for duty." 2. When the Writ Petition came up for admission on 25.8.2008 after holding that the respondents/writ petitioners have no right to continue in service beyond the period for which they were appointed, I disposed of the Writ Petition with a direction to the District Collector to consider whether the petitioners can be retained in service till regular hands join duty. To enable the District Collector to take a decision in the matter, I also permitted the petitioners to submit a representation before RP 955/08 -: 2 :- the District Collector seeking continuance in service till regular hands recruited by the Public Service Commission join duty. I had also directed that till the District Collector takes a decision in the matter, the respondents/writ petitioners shall not be relieved from service if as on 25.8.2008, they had not been relieved. The respondents in the Writ Petition seek a review of the said direction relying on the ninth proviso to Rule 9(a)(i) of Part II of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958 and the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Radha v. District Medical Officer - 2002 (2) K.L.T. 711. Sri.Nandakumar, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the review petitioners submitted that in view of the ninth proviso to Rule 9(a)(i) of Part II of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958, the respondents/writ petitioners have no right to be reappointed except when fresh candidates are not available for appointment through Employment Exchange and that even in such cases, reappointment can be had only with the prior concurrence of the Kerala Public Service Commission. He contended that the writ petitioners were appointed through the Employment Exchange and that other eligible persons who have registered with the Employment Exchange are available for appointment and therefore, the writ petitioners cannot claim continuance in service. The learned Government Pleader also relied on the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Radha v. District Medical Officer (supra) to contend for the position that the direction issued by this Court to the District Collector to consider whether the petitioners can be retained in service till regular hands join duty cannot be sustained on the terms of the ninth proviso to Rule 9(a)(i) of Part II of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958. 3. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel appearing on either side. Even in the judgment sought to be reviewed I had held that the petitioners have no legal right to continue in service beyond the term for which they were appointed. In RP 955/08 -: 3 :- Radha v. District Medical Officer (supra), this Court held as follows: "There may be situations where temporary employees appointed under R.9(a)(i) are continuing in service as such beyond their term of appointment either by virtue of the interim orders passed by this Court in petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution or due to other circumstances including inaction on the part of the appointing authority to terminate the services of the temporary employee after the specified period. The continuation of the temporary employees appointed under R.9(a)(i) beyond the period of appointment is contrary to the provisions of R.9(a)(i) which we have already extracted in para 10 supra. The temporary employees appointed under R.9(a)(i) have no legal right to insist that they should be allowed to continue in service beyond the period specified in the second and fifth provisos to R.9(a)(i) or till they are replaced by regular hands appointed through P.S.C. or otherwise. The rule making authority can never be understood as making a provision like R.9(a)(iii) to apply to a situation of illegal or unauthorised continuation of temporary employees beyond the specified period. If the said rule is to be applicable even to the temporary employees continuing beyond the term of their appointment that will amount to nullifying the binding effect of the second, fifth and nineth provisos of R.9(a)(i). Such an interpretation would cut at the root of the purpose with which the said provisos are introduced in R.9 (a)(i) of Part II of the Rules." In the light of the authoritative pronouncement of the Full Bench of this Court in Radha v. District Medical Officer (supra), I am satisfied that the direction issued to the District Collector, Kollam to consider whether the petitioners can be retained in service till regular hands join duty, is not in RP 955/08 -: 4 :- tune with the ninth proviso to Rule 9(a)(i) of Part II of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958. 4. In the result, the direction issued by me in the judgment dated 25.8.2008 in W.P.(C) No.25330 of 2008 to the District Collector, Kollam to consider whether the writ petitioners can be retained in service till regular hands join duty and the further direction issued to the District Collector to retain them in service till orders in that regard are passed are recalled. The Review Petition is allowed as above. P.N.Ravindran, Judge. ess 1/9