IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 5TH JUNE 2008 / 15TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 16328 of 2008(R) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ 1. K.HEMALATHA,JUNIOR PUBLIC HEALTH NURSE GR.11. C.H.CENTRE,NILESHWAR, KASARAGODE 2. NIRMALA.K.V., JUNIOR PUBLIC HEALTH NURSE GR.II, P.H.CENTRE, CHENGALA, DO. 3. PREMAVALLY.A.V., DO. MANGALPADY/ D.H.K.ANGANGAD, KASARAGFODE 4. INDIRA.M.V. DO. P.H.CENTRE, UDUMBUMTHALA, KASARAGODE 5. K.LAKSHMI, DO. PERIYE, KASARAGODE 6. K.ASMA, DO. P.H.CENTRE, PALLIKKARE, KASARAGODE 7. P.P.LALITHA, DO. DO. PALLIKKARE, DO. 8. K.V.VIMALA, DO. DO. UDMA, KASARAGODE 9. JANAKI.K., DO. DO. BODADKA, KASARAGODE 10. JAYASREE.T.P., DO. DO.MADIKKAI, KASARAGODE 11. SARADAMBA.C.H. DO. DO. KUMBADAJE, KASARA GODE. BY ADV. SRI.NAVEEN.T RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM WP(C).No. 16328 of 2008 -2- 2. THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 3. THE DISTRICT MEDICA; OFFICER OF HEALTH KASARAGODE. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.M.R.SREELATHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).16328/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 5th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioners are Junior Public Health Nurses working in the Health Services Department, Kasargode District. They were appointed on a regular basis on various dates. But they had earlier rendered provisional service, pursuant to their appointment under Rule 9(a)(i) of Part-II of K.S. & S.S.R. According to them, they are entitled to be regularized in service from the date of their commencement of provisional service. They refer to Ext.P1 judgment of the Supreme court in support of their contention. 2. Petitioners also refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.4127-28 of 2001 (Ext.P2). By the said judgment, Supreme court directed that the benefit of the order passed by the Supreme court in Writ Petition No.476/1991 (Ext.P1) be extended to the appellants in Ext.P2 also. Petitioners submit that they approached this Court earlier in O.P.7203/2001, which was disposed of under Ext.P3 judgment, directing them to approach the W.P.(C).16328/2008 2 Government. They did so. But their case has been rejected under Ext.P4 order. It is under challenge in this writ petition. 3. I heard learned counsel for the petitioners Mr.T.Naveen and the learned Government Pleader. 4. The Government have dealt with the petitioners’ claim for regularization in Ext.P4 order. It is noted that the petitioners had commenced their regular service only after 1.10.1994. It is then noted that the provisional service rendered prior to 1.10.1994 will not be taken into account, in relation to the persons who are regularized in service subsequent to the said date. This is taking note of G.O.(MS) No.246/2005 dated 30.9.2005 wherein the Government had decided that in regularizing the provisional service of the petitioners whose cases were dealt with, such persons will be treated as having commenced regular appointment only with effect from the date of advise of PSC. Seniority of a person is governed by Rule 27(a) of Part-II of K.S. & S.S.R. In that view of the matter there is no error in the W.P.(C).16328/2008 3 stand taken by the Government. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that by Ext.P1 order, Supreme Court had directed the petitioners in the said case to be regularized in their respective posts and by Ext.P2 order, the appellants therein were directed to be given the same benefit. It is further contended that in Ext.P3 judgment, this Court had found that the temporary employees, who had directly approached the Supreme Court, were directed to be given the benefit of regularization in service and such persons were regularized in service with effect from the date of commencement of provisional service. Counsel further submits that if the petitioners had continued as provisional employees, they might have probably been granted the same benefit, as was afforded to the petitioners in Exts.P1 and P2. This might have resulted in they being regularized from the date of commencement of their provisional service. 6. I am unable to accept the submission of the petitioners. Essentially in Exts.P1 and P2, Supreme W.P.(C).16328/2008 4 court had directed that the provisional hands be regularized in service. But such direction may not really be applicable in the case of the petitioners who are already in regular service. There is no further sustenance to be drawn by the petitioners from the judgments, Exts.P1 and P2. 7. It is also noteworthy that in Ext.P2 judgment, Supreme Court had made it clear that the directions issued therein should not constitute a precedent for any other case. Supreme Court had therefore, made it clear that no issue as such was being decided. Petitioners’ seniority in service is to be governed by statutory rules and the same is to be reckoned with reference to the date on which they commenced their regular service. I do not find any error in the stand taken by the Government. Writ petition is bereft of merit and the same is dismissed. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs