IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2009 / 16TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 6510 of 2009(G) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. LALGIMON K.C., WATCHER-CUM-PEON, COLLEGE OF APPLIED SCIENCE, CHEEMANI, KASARGOD DISTRICT. 2. N.V.ANILKUMAR, WATCHER-CUM-PEON, COLLEGE OF APPLIED SCIENCE, CHEEMANI, KASARGOD DISTRICT. 3. K.J.VARGHESE, WATCHER-CUM-PEON, COLLEGE OF APPLIED SCIENCE, KUTHUPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT. 4. S.SACHEENDRA BABU, WATCHER-CUM-PEON, COLLEGE OF APPLIED SCIENCE, KUTHUPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.A.FIROZ SRI.GEORGE MECHERIL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE INSTITUTE OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DEVELOPMENT (IHRD), PROJOE TOWERS, VAZHUTHAKKAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR. ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R2 SRI.S.SUJIN, SC, IHRD FOR R2 SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.A.J.VARGHESE FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.6510/2009-G ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 7th day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioners herein are aggrieved by the action taken by the respondents, rejecting their claim for regularisation in the service with effect from the date of their initial appointment. They are also challenging Ext.P10 notification. 2. Heard both sides. The petitioners submit that they have been working from the year 2001-02 on daily wage basis. Exts.P1 to P4 are the copies of the appointment orders. The initial period of appointment was for 179 days and it was extended during different spells which is evidenced by Exts.P5 to P7. Ext.P10 is the notification issued by the second respondent inviting applications for filling up the vacancies of Last Grade Employees. It is in these circumstances they have approached this Court seeking for regularisation in service. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the decision of the Apex Court reported in U.P. State Electricity Board v. Pooran Chandra Pandey [2007 (4) KLT 513 (SC)] to contend for the position that they are entitled for regularisation in service. W.P.(C). No.6510/2009 -:2:- 4. In the statement filed on behalf of the second respondent, it is pointed out that the petitioners were terminated from service as their service was no longer required. It is pointed out that in the light of the directions issued by this Court in the judgment in W.P.(C).No.29063/2006 and connected cases dated 13/07/2007, the existing vacancies were notified through print media. The ad hoc employees who were engaged under IHRD were given weightage as per new employment policies. It is pointed out that accordingly, ranked list will be prepared and the same will be on the basis of performance of the applicants in the written test and interview. It is therefore, submitted that the second respondent has taken action only in accordance with the directions of this Court in the judgment referred above. 5. True that in the decision of the Apex Court in U.P. State Electricity Board's case [2007 (4) KLT 513 (SC)], the violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India was considered, but the said view has not been accepted in later decisions. In light of the above and in view of the fact that the second respondent has taken a decision in accordance with the directions issued by this Court in W.P.(C).No.29063/2006 and connected cases, there cannot said to be any illegality in Ext.P10 notification. The petitioners were admittedly engaged only on daily wage basis for a period W.P.(C). No.6510/2009 -:3:- of 179 days which was extended from time to time. It is well settled that the said appointment will not confer any right for regularisation in service. The said position is clear from the decision of the Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v.Uma Devi (3) & Ors. [(2006) 4 SCC 1]. Therefore the writ petition is dismissed. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms