IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 4TH DECEMBER 2008 / 13TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 24195 of 2005(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. N.D.MATHEW, S/O.NELSON, AGED 31 YEARS, ANTO NIVAS, KALLIYOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TALUK. 2. SHERLY B.R., D/O.BHANU NADAR, AGED 29 YEARS, KARUPPAN KAVU, CHRISTHU BHAVAN, CHANGA KARA, VELLANAD VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.V.GEORGE SRI.ASHA MOHAN SMT.LINDA GEORGE SRI.SUNITHA NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO AGRICULTURE (AH), DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR, ANIMAL HUSBANDRY DEPARTMENT, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DISTRICT ANIMAL HUSBANDRY OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.R. DEEPA FOR R1TO3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/12/2008, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 24990 OF 2005 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 24195 of 2005 EXT.P1: COPY OF CIRCULAR DTD 6/2/1999 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD 19.2.00 ISSUED BY GOVT. OF KERALA. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE KERALA GAZETTEE NOTIFICATION DTD 26.12.2001. EXT.P4: COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 29.6.2004 IN WA NO.977/2004 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE INTIMATION DTD 27.10.04 BY R2 TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD 20.7.2005 IN C.C.NO.739/05 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE FINAL SENIORITY LIST OF PART TIME SWEEPERS W.E.F.1/1/06 PUBLISHED BY DISTRICT ANIMAL HUSBANDRY OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS EXT.R1: COPY OF TRAINING CERTIFICATE BY 'MITRANIKETAN' TO THE 1ST PETITONER. EXT.R2: COPY OF TRAINING CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY 'THE DALE VIEW' TO THE 2ND PETITIONER. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE. S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.24195 & 24990 OF 2005 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of December, 2008 JUDGMENT W.P.(C) No.24990 OF 2005 The petitioners are certificate holders in Artificial Insemination on cattles. They have also undergone training in Artificial Insemination and Dairy Management. They were conducting private Artificial Insemination Centres. While so, by Ext.P1, the Government banned private Artificial Insemination and directed that Artificial Insemination can be conducted only under the auspices of the Animal Husbandry Department of the Government. Later on, realising the fact that on account of Ext.P1, many qualified private individuals lost their livelihood, the Government issued Ext.P2 order dated 19.2.2000, by which it was decided to consider qualified persons for the purpose of appointment as Part – Time Contingent Employees by relaxing the recruitment rules in this regard. Appropriate amendments were also made in the Kerala Part-Time Contingent Service Special Rules. Although a learned Single Judge of this Court held W.P.(c)No.24990/05 & Con.case 2 that appointments as per the amended rules can be made only to vacancies, which have arisen subsequent to the amendment, that judgment was set aside by the Division Bench in W.A.No.977/2004 holding that appointments effected to vacancies also after the amendment of the Special Rules, in accordance with the Special Rules, is perfectly valid notwithstanding the date of occurrence of vacancy. Thereafter, the petitioners claimed that they have submitted Exts.P5 and P6 applications seeking appointment as Part- Time Contingent Employees. However they were not considered for such appointments. Therefore, the 1st petitioner filed a representation dated 30.3.2004 before the Government which was rejected by Ext.P7 dated 9.6.2005 holding that he did not apply in time pursuant to the notification inviting applications. The petitioners, therefore, seek the following reliefs: “ (i) Call for the entire records relating to the case; (ii) Issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to appoint the petitioners as Part Time Contingent Employees under Animal Husbandry Department, without any further delay. (iii) issue a writ of mandamus declaring that petitioners are entitled to be appointed as part Time contingent Employees under the 2 nd respondent in view of Ext.P1 to P3 orders.” W.P.(c)No.24990/05 & Con.case 3 2. According to the petitioners, the notifications inviting applications were published on 3.12.2000 and the petitioners had submitted Exts.P5 and P6 as early as on 29.8.2000 and 27.8.2000 and therefore, there is no merit in the statement in Ext.P7 that the 1st petitioner did not apply in time. Hence, according to the petitioners, they are entitled to be considered for appointment as Part Time Contingent Employees. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 1st respondent, in which it is specifically denied that Exts.P5 and P6 have been received. Although relying on the sentence in paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit to the effect that the petitioners' application were not received before 6.12.2000 as stated by them, the petitioner would try to make out a case that the case of the respondents is only that they received the applications belatedly, they have not been able to satisfy me that Exts.P5 and P6 applications have been received by the respondents. Although the petitioners would contend that the notification was published on 3.12.2000 giving only three days time namely, 6.12.2000 for submitting applications which is arbitrary and unreasonable, I am not inclined to consider the W.P.(c)No.24990/05 & Con.case 4 same since the notifications were issued as early as in 2000 and the petitioners have filed this writ petition only in 2005. In so far as the petitioners have not applied pursuant to notifications, I do not think that at this distance of time any relief can be granted to the petitioner in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. W.P.(C)No.24195 of 2005 In this writ petition also the facts are the identical as in W.P.(C) No.24990/2005. Here also the petitioners have not been able to satisfy me that they had filed a valid application within time pursuant to notifications inviting applications. They have also not challenged the notification inviting applications within the reasonable time, because this writ petition is also filed only in 2005 whereas the notification inviting applications were issued as early as in December 2000. Therefore, I do not find any merit in this writ petition also. Accordingly, the same is also dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd W.P.(c)No.24990/05 & Con.case 5