IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 14TH AUGUST 2009 / 23RD SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 14010 of 2009(U) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ K.VARKEY, S/O.V.KURIAN, DRIVER (ON DIALY WAGES), KERALA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION, HEAD OFFICE, ERNAKULAM, P.B.NO.1727, WAREHOUSING CORPORATION ROAD, COCHIN-682 016, RESIDING AT VADAKKE KANNOM KONATTU, KADAKKARAPPALLY P.O., CHERTHALA. BY ADVS.MR.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY SMT.N.SANTHA MR.PETER JOSE CHRISTO MR.S.A.ANAND MR.RAMESH. C.R. RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION HEAD OFFICE, ERNAKULAM, P.B.NO.1727, WAREHOUSING CORPORATION ROAD, COCHIN-682 016, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION, HEAD OFFICE, ERNAKULAM, P.B.NO.1727, WAREHOUSING CORPORATION ROAD, COCHIN-682 016. R1 & R2 BY MR.MAJNU KOMATH, SC, K.S.W.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.14010/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE S.S.L.C. BOOK ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER . P2:- COPY OF THE DRIVING LICENCE AND BADGE ISSUED BY THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, CHERTHALA. P3:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 16.12.02 ISSUED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE CORPORATION. P4:- COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DT. 25.7.05 ISSUED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE CORPORATION IN THE ''KERALA KAUMUDI '' DAILY. P5:- COPY OF THE MEMO DTD. 18.8.05 ISSUED BY THE JOINT MANAGER (ADMINISTRATION) OF THE CORPORATION. P6:- COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DTD. 7.11.05 ISSUED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE CORPORATION. P7:- COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DTD. 11.11.05 ISSUED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE CORPORATION. P8:- COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DTD. 3.2.06 ISSUED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE CORPORATION. P9:- COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DTD. 1.3.06 ISSUE. P10:- COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DTD. 3.2.07 ISSUED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE CORPORATION. P11:- COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DTD. 13.2.07 ISSUED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE CORPORATION. P12:- COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT DTD. 5.3.07 FILED ON BEHALF OF THE IST RESPONDENT CORPORATION IN WPC. 4479/07. P13:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT MANAGING DIRECTOR DTD. 22.8.07. P14:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC. NO.25338/07 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. P15:- COPY OF THE LETTER NO.KSWC/ADMN/CC223/07-08 DTD. 16.1.08 OF THE MANAGING DIRECTOR. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE tss T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.14010 of 2009-U - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 14th day of August, 2009. JUDGMENT Aggrieved by Ext.P10 order passed by the second respondent terminating the service of the petitioner, this writ petition is filed. The petitioner was appointed as a driver pursuant to Ext.P4 notification issued by the Corporation. Even at the time when Ext.P4 notification was issued, the petitioner was in the service of the Corporation as a daily wage employee. After the interview, he was selected and was appointed accordingly. The proceedings Ext.P6 shows that the petitioner was provisionally selected for appointment as driver in the scale of pay of Rs.3350-5275 on temporary basis. 2. The petitioner, at that time was given a posting in the State Warehouse, Cherthala, as per Ext.P7. Subsequently, a permanent vacancy of driver arose on 1.2.2006 in the head office of the Corporation at Ernakulam on the retirement of one Shri A.R. Mani, driver. Thereafter, the petitioner was appointed on a regular basis as per Ext.P8. The probation of the petitioner was declared by Ext.P9. While so, he was terminated from service as per Ext.P10. wpc 14010/2009 2 3. It appears that the termination was ordered in the light of the fact that some other selectees were over aged at the time of appointment and also on certain other grounds. The case of the petitioner is that his date of birth is 14.12.1976 and he was not over aged at that time. He has been working as a driver on daily wage basis, even after Ext.P10 order was passed. 4. The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit. The fact that the petitioner has been appointed as per Ext.P8, is admitted in the counter affidavit. It is pointed out that the age limit for the post of Driver in the Corporation is 18 - 35 in General Category, 18 - 38 in OBC and 18 - 40 in SC/ST categories. It is also stated that at the time of issuance of Ext.P4 notification, the petitioner was within the age limit but three others, viz. Shri Devadas, Shri Thankachan and Shri Dileepkumar who were also terminated along with the petitioner on 3.2.2007, were crossed on the age limit. 5. Therefore, the state of affairs show that as far as the petitioner is concerned, there was no disqualification going by the upper age limit fixed for the purpose of appointment. He had satisfied all other qualifications also. True, that the persons who were terminated, had challenged the termination in various proceedings and the matter had reached the Apex Court also. But that cannot be a reason to terminate the service of the wpc 14010/2009 3 petitioner. It cannot therefore be stated that there was any patent irregularity as far as the appointment of the petitioner is concerned. Going by the averments in the writ petition, there was a proper notification pursuant to which a selection process was undertaken by the Corporation. It cannot be said to be an illegal appointment or a back door appointment. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that the petitioner will not claim any arrears of salary or other monetary benefits, if he is ordered to be reinstated in service. 7. In the light of the various aspects pointed out above, Exts.P10 and P15 are quashed. Pursuant to the interim order passed by this court, the petitioner is continuing in service on a daily wage basis. The corporation will therefore pass appropriate orders reinstating the petitioner in service as a driver on permanent basis without any arrears of salary, but with continuity of service from the date of Ext.P8 order. The writ petition is allowed as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/