IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 10TH DECEMBER 2009 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 2277 of 2009(U) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- K.KAMALAKARAN, S/O.GOVINDANKUTTY NAIR, KOZHIPRA HOUSE,MANNAMANGALAM P.O.THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.N.SUBRAMANIAM, MR.M.S.NARAYANAN, MR.P.T.GIRIJAN, SMT.USHA NARAYANAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, SCIENCE,TECHNOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE KERALA STATE COUNCIL FOR SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT, SASTHRA BHAVAN, PATTOM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. THE KERALA FOREST RESEARCH INSTITUTE, PEECHI, THRISSUR- 680 653, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. P. NANDAKUMAR, R2 BY MR. P.A. AHAMMED, S.C, R3 BY ADVS. MR.S.M.PREM, SMT.K.P.SANTHI. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/12/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.2277/2009-U: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE R.3. ORGANISATION. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED TO THE R.3. BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE R.3. ORGANISATION. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE R.3. ORGANISATION TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE R.3. ORGANISATION TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE OF THE R.3. ORGANISATION. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE LETTER WROTE THE DIRECTOR OF THE R.3. ORGANISATION TO THE R.2. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE LETTER WROTE THE DIRECTOR OF THE R.3. ORGANISATION TO THE R.2. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED TO THE DIRECTOR OF THE R.3. ORGANISATION BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE R.2. EXT.P.11: COPY OF THE LETTER WROTE THE R.2. TO THE R.1. EXT.P.12: COPY OF THE LETTER WROTE THE R.2. TO THE R.3. EXT.P.13: COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE R.3. ORGANISATION. EXT.P.14: COPY OF THE REQUEST OF THE DIRECTOR OF THE R.3. ORGANISATION TO THE R.2. EXT.P.15: COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE R.2. EXT.P.16: COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE R.2. EXT.P.17: COPY OF THE GOVT. ORDER NO. G.O.(RT).NO.60/2008/S&TD. EXT.P.18: COPY OF THE GOVT. ORDER. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P.(C) No. 2277 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 10th day of December, 2009 JUDGMENT Prayer sought for in this writ petition is to quash the decision of the first respondent declining approval for regularizing the service of the petitioner, which was conveyed through the second respondent, as per Ext.P15. The petitioner also seeks a direction to the respondents to regularize his services and to grant benefits on such regularization. 2. The petitioner submits that in pursuance to the applications invited, he applied for the post of Office Assistant and joined the third respondent, as a Trainee on 2-1-1997 and continued till 2-4-1997. Thereafter, he was appointed on consolidated wages as Office Assistant and still later, on contract basis with the designation as Asst. Programmer. The last of such appointment order is Ext.P5, by which his period of appointment has been extended for five years from 5-12- 2006. 3. He made representations for regularization of his service, which finally culminated in Ext.P10, a minutes of the meeting of the committee of the second respondent, where the second respondent W.P.(C) No. 2277/09 2 approved the proposal to regularize the service of the petitioner as Office Assistant in the third respondent, in the scale of pay of Rs.4,000-6090 and decided to refer the proposal for Government sanction. 4.The proposal was forwarded by the second respondent to the first respondent by Ext.P11 seeking approval. Thereafter, the first respondent called for details of the service of the petitioner from the second respondent which in turn called for details from the third respondent, as per Ext.P12. In Ext.P13 reply given, the details were furnished and the details of the service of the other persons whose service were regularized have also been given. Finally by Ext.P15 oder the second respondent informed the third respondent that the Government have declined sanction sought for the regularization of the service of the petitioner. It is in these circumstances, this writ petition is filed. 5. A statement has been filed by the second respondent. They accept that the petitioner has been working as Assistant Programmer in the scale of pay of Rs.7990-12930. It is stated that the service of the petitioner has been proved to the useful to the third respondent and that his service is needed for the institution. 6.In the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, W.P.(C) No. 2277/09 3 paragraph 13, 14 and 15 reads as under:- “13. Regarding the statements contained in the Ground A, D and E of the writ petition it is submitted that the Management Committee of Kerala Forest Research Institute recommended regularization of the services of Shri.K.Kamalakaran and forwarded his service particulars to the Council for approval. The Executive Committee of the Council had also accepted the proposal for regularization of the service and sought the approval of the Government. The KSCSTE in principle had no objection in regularizing the services of Shri.K.Kamalakaran. There is no doubt regarding the eligibility, experience and qualification as well as the suitability of Shri.K.Kamalakaran in holding the post of Assistant Programmer on a permanent basis. He was appointed temporarily on consolidated salary basis by the management of KFRI as early as in 2-5- 1998 and he has been continuing in the Institute rendering useful service to the Institute. The continued service of Shri. K.Kamalakaran would be beneficial to KFRI and there is no other claimant to the post held by him. However, his appointment was not done through Employment Exchange, which is an impediment in regularizing the service of Shri.K.Kamalakaran as informed by the Government. He is rendering a specialized job and his services are helpful to the smooth functioning of the Institute. Since his initial appointment was not made by Employment Exchange, special permission of the Government is needed to regularize his job. 14. Regarding the averments contained in Ground B of the writ petition it is submitted that no substantial additional financial burden would arise if the petitioner’s service is regularized. It would be advantageous to the Institute to utilize the services of Shri.K.Kamalakaran who has long experience in the specialized field as Assistant Programmer which is essential to the Institute. It would be difficult to locate equally competent or more qualified person other than Shri K.Kamalakaran. to meet the requirements of the W.P.(C) No. 2277/09 4 Institute at the present rate of remuneration given to ShriK.Kamalakaran. 15. The 2nd respondent has no objection in allowing the prayers in the writ petition.” 7. Therefore, this is a case where the employer wants tp regularize the services of the petitioner. The establishment has taken a decision favouring such regularization. Further the establishment stated that his regularization will be of benefit to it. Despite all this, the Government have rejected the proposal and Ext.P15, the only communication received by the third respondent, does not even state why such a decision was taken. 8. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner has joined initially as Assistant Programmer, after a selection process, that he has been working in the establishment since 1997, that his service was found to be indispensable for the establishment, that the establishment themselves resolved for his regularization and also taking into the fact that by now he has become over aged for another employment, I feel it only appropriate that his service should be regularized, as an Office Assistant. 9. Therefore, the decision of the first respondent to the contrary as reflected in Ext.P15 stand set aside. Respondents 2 and 3 are directed to regularize the service of the petitioner as Office W.P.(C) No. 2277/09 5 Assistant with immediate effect. This writ petition is allowed accordingly. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE. mn.