IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 15TH OCTOBER 2009 / 23RD ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 33832 of 2005(S) -------------------------- OA.449/2005 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------------- K.M. IBRAHIM, S/O. MADURAKAM MOHAMMED HAJI, RESIDING AT KEERTI MAHAL HOUSE, KADMAT ISLAND, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP (FORMERLY WORKING AS VILLAGE EXTENSION OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE ADDITIONAL SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CHETLET ISLAND, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP.) BY ADV. SRI.M.P.KRISHNAN NAIR SRI.S.BIJU (KIZHAKKANELA) RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ADMINISTRATOR ADMINISTRATION OF THE UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP, SECRETARIAT, KAVARATTI ISLAND-682 555. 2. THE COLLECTOR-CUM-DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, ADMINISTRATION OF THE UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP, SECRETARIAT, KAVARATTI ISLAND-682 555. 3. THE SECRETARY (ADMINISTRATION) ADMINISTRATION OF THE UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP, SECRETARIAT, KAVARATTI ISLAND-682 555. 4. M.K. ALI ASGAR, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O. SYED MOHAMMED KOYA, R/O, MALMIKAKKAD HOUSE, KALPENI, LAKSHADWEEP, U.T. OF LAKSHADWEEP. 5. C. ABDUL SAMEEN, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O. SYED MOHAMMED KOYA, R/O. CHERIYAPADA HOUSE, LAKSHADWEEP, U.T. OF LAKSHADWEEP. WP(C).No. 33832 of 2005(S) ADDL.6. K.K.ABDUL NAZAR, VILLAGE EXTENSION OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE BLOCK DEVELOMPMENT OFFICER, KALPENI ISLAND, UT OF LAKSHADWEEP. ADDL.7. P.C.MOHAMOOD, VILLAGE EXTENSION OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, KAVARATTI ISLAND, UT OF LAKSHADWEEP. ADDL.8. K.C.MOHAMEMD KHALEEL, VILLAGE EXTENSION OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, ANDROTT ISLAND, UT OF LAKSHADWEEP [IMPLEADED AS ADDL.RESPONDENTS R6,R7 AND R8 AS PER ORDER DATED 5/1/2009 IN I.A.NO.14350/2008 IN W.P.(C) NO.33832/2005 By ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN ADV. SRI.SHAFIK M.ABDULKHADIR,SC,LAKSHADWEEP FOR R1 TO 3 SMT.SUMATHY DANDAPANI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R5 SRI.P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON,SC,LAKSHADWEE FOR R1TO3 SRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,SC,LAKSHADWEEP ADMN FOR R1-3 SRI.N.D.PREMACHANDRAN FOR R8 SRI.D.AJITHKUMAR FOR R8 SMT.LALIZA.T.Y. FOR R8 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/10/2009, THE COURT ON 15/10/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 33832 of 2005(S) APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS: EXT.P1. TRUE COPY OF THE O.A.NO.449/2005 ALONG WITH ANNEXURES A1 TO A19. EXT.P2. TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 17/6/2005. EXT.P3. TRUE COPY OF THE CORRECTED CIRCULAR RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER FROM THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICE, AMINI ISLAND. EXT.P4. TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE CIRCULAR EXT.P5. A TRUE COPY OF THE IMPLEADING PETITION NO.780/05. EXT.P6. TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT IN M.A.780/05 IN O.A.NO.449/05. EXT.P7. TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS NO.4 AND 5. EXT.P7(A) TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS NOS.4 AND 5 EXT.P8. TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER DATED 19/10/2005. EXT.P9. TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT ALONG WITH ANNEXURE R1 TO R6 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3. EXT.P10. TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER FILED BY THE PETIITONER TO THE REPLY DATED 27/10/2005 STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3. EXT.P11. TRUE COPY OF THE AMENDMENT APPLICATION FILED ON 29/10/2005 BY THE PETITIONER EXT.P12. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24/11/2005 O.A.449/2005 EXT.P13. TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER F.NO.2/06/2005- SERVICES DATED 18/4/2006 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT EXT.P.14. TRUE COPY OF THE RELIEVING ORDER DATED 20/6/207 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO MR.K.SYED, EXTENSION OFFICER (GENERAL) OFFICE OF THE SDO, KADAMATH RETIRED ON 30/6/2007 ON ATTAINING THE AGE OF 60. EXT.P15. TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF CHAPTER 12 OF GFR. EXT.P16. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER F.NO.2/2/1993 SERVICES (2) DATED 26/5/1993 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT WP(C).No. 33832 of 2005(S) (2) EXT.P17. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER F.NO.2/2/1993 DATED 18/6/1995 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT EXT.P18. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26/9/2008 IN O.A.NO.710/07 OF THE CAT ERNAKULAM BRANCH EXT.P19. TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM F.NO.02/01/03 SERVICES (2) DATED 20/10/2007 ISSUED BY THE LAKSHADWEEP ADMINISTRATION EXT.P19(A) TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL SENIORITY LIST OF VILLAGE EXTENSION OFFICERS ISSUED BY THE LAKSHADWEEP ADMINISTRATION EXT.P20. TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM F.NO.2/5/2008 SERVICES DATED 26/6/2009 ISSUED BY THE LAKSHADWEEP ADMINISTRATION EXT.P20(A) TRUE COPY OF THE PROFORMA ATTACHED TO EXT.20. EXT.21. TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER F.NO.2/01/2003 SERVICE DATED 19/3/2006 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT EXT.22. TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ON 28/6/2004 TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT EXT.23. TRUE COPY OF THE MESSAGE DATED 23/6/2007 ISSUED BY THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KADAMAT EXT.24. TRUE COPY OF THE RELIEVING ORDER OF P.UMMER DATED 31/3/2008 ISSUED BY THE RESPODENT EXT.25. TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE OF EXTENSION OFFICER (GENERAL) M.YOUSUF EXT.26. TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 24/1/2004 SUBMITTED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE LAKSHADWEEP GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES UNION EXT.27. TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 22/7/2003 SUBMITTED BY THE GENERAL SECRETARY, LAKSHADWEEP GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES UNION /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE KURIAN JOSEPH & C.T.RAVIKUMAR,JJ ------------------------------------------ W.P.(C). No.33832 of 2005 -------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of October,2009 JUDGMENT Kurian Joseph.J The original applicant before the Central Administration Tribunal, Ernakulam in O.A.No.449/2005 is the writ petitioner. That original application, the fourth in the series before the Tribunal was filed praying for a direction that the applicant should be reinstated in service as Village Extension Officer and should be accommodated in an available vacancy. The Tribunal rejected the application and hence this writ petition. 2. Though the case bundle is voluminous since the writ petitioner is obliged to state the history of all the litigations pursued hitherto and narrate the story of fight for justice over a decade, we do not think that we should refer to all those facts. It will be sufficient to note the bare minimum facts. As per order 15/11/1987 Ext.P1 (18) the petitioner was offered appointment by the Lakshadweep Administration as Village Extension Officer, in a temporary post. Thereafter he was issued the order of appointment dated 13/2/1988 along with three others. The W.P.(C). No.33832 of 2009 2 petitioner is the fourth in that list. He joined duty on 18/2/1988. When the petitioner made a request for regularisation , he was informed by letter dated 4/6/1996 that as and when he acquires the qualification of successfully passing the Village Extension Officer training, his claim for regularisation would be considered. While so, he was terminated from service as per order dated 29/11/1999 (A15). It is stated therein that the writ petitioner had not successfully completed the training qualification. Still further it is also stated that on account of repatriation of a regular hand there was no post available to accommodate him. In short the two reasons stated are :-1) there was no vacancy. 2) the writ petitioner had not successfully completed the Village Extension Officer Training. 3. As we have already referred to above, petitioner has unsuccessfully challenged those and subsequent orders. Whileso the petitioner successfully completed the Village Extension Officer Training course on 20/1/2000 and the certificate was also issued to him. In the meanwhile one Mr.K.C.Mohammed Khaleel who W.P.(C). No.33832 of 2009 3 was appointed along with petitioner on 13/2/1988 and who was also unqualified acquired qualification. But that was in March 2001. However since apparently he had been continuing in service, he was regularised in service. It is pointed out that in the case of Sri.P.C.Mohammed (though a party to the writ petition,he has not chosen to appear) also acquired the qualification only in March 2001 and yet he was regualrised in service. The name of three other persons are also furnished by the Writ Petitioner who joined duty after the petitioner and whose service were regularised later.Their names are Sri.K.K.Abdul Nazar, Sri.C. Abdul Sameen and Sri.M.K.Ali Asgar. The crux of the contention taken by the petitioner is that since the petitioner has acquired qualification and since admittedly there were vacancies on the acquisition of qualification, being the person acquired the qualification first the case for his regularisation should have been considered favourably since he had been told as per Ext.P8 that his case for regularisation would be considered on the acquisition of qualification.In any case, it is prayed that in view of the above W.P.(C). No.33832 of 2009 4 factual matrix, he may be appointed in the existing or next arising vacancy. 4. The Learned Standing Counsel for the Administration however points out that the petitioner cannot resurrect a stale claim. The Tribunal as well as this court had found that the appointment of the petitioner being only on adhoc basis he cannot have any other claim, since the termination from service was only on account of non availability of vacancies. Though several other contentions are also taken, we do not propose to advert to those contentions mainly for the reasons that they are too technical . However the crucial question is, when the petitioner appointed against temporary vacancy having been told that he would be considered for regualarisation on acquisition of test qualification, whether he should be considered on acquisition of qualification in case there is a vacancy. As we have already pointed out the persons appointed on the very same adhoc basis along with writ petitioner, though they acquired test qualification only on or after the petitioner acquired the qualification, have been regualrised in W.P.(C). No.33832 of 2009 5 service. The two reasons for termination in the case of petitioner: - 1).Want of vacancy 2).want of test qualification Hence against Vacancy available after January 2000, the case of the petitioner should have been considered. The learned Standing Counsel points out that the vacancies can be filled up only on a regular recruitment process. We are afraid that contention cannot be appreciated. The writ petitioner has served the Administration during the prime of his youth,for ten years and he had been told that he would be considered for regularisation on acquisition of test qualification and that qualification the writ petitioner having acquired, in case there are vacancies nothing stands in the way of the working out of the earlier communication to the applicant. True it is more than 10 years since he was terminated from service. But the hard fact remains that he worked for the Administration for 10 years, he has acquired qualification, there are vacancies available and the last 10 years he has been either before the Administration or the Tribunal or W.P.(C). No.33832 of 2009 6 this court. Therefore to meet the ends of justice, petitioner who is at the age of 46 should be considered for regular appointment since he has acquired test qualification.In the above circumstance we dispose the writ petition as follows:- There will be a direction to the Collector-cum-Development Commissioner, Administration of the Union Territory of Lakshadweep (second respondent), to consider the case of the writ petitioner for appointment as Village Extension Officer in any of the existing or next arising vacancy, in the light of the observations in this judgment. The needful shall be done within a period of two months. KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE C.T.RAVIKUMAR,JUDGE ssn