IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 21ST KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 31254 of 2008(U) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- P.VIJAYAN, VILLAGE EXTENSION OFFICER GR-1., THIRUVANGADI BLOCK, MALAPPURAM, R/AT.PANNIYANKARA VEEDU ARIYALLOOR PO., MALAPPURAM-676312. BY ADV. SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE SRI.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH SRI.K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH) SRI.V.G.SALEESH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF-GOVERNMENT TRIVANDRUM. 2. COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONERATE OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT, TRIVANDRUM. 3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.NANDAKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J ----------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 31254 OF 2008 ----------------------------- Dated this 12th day of November, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner was initially appointed as Village Extension Officer Grade II on a provisional basis through the Employment Exchange by order dated 30-4-1981 issued by the District Collector, Malappuram. He joined duty on 8-5-1981. While the petitioner was thus continuing in service, by Circular No.73817/SDI/84/GAD dated 4-8-1984 (Ext.P1), the Government permitted provisional employees belonging to the Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes in service as on 02.08.1984 to continue in service until further orders. He was relieved from service on 17-3-1987 pursuant to the order dated 13-3-1987 issued by the District Collector, Malappuram. Later, on the basis of G.O.(P) No.372/85/GAD dated 6-9-1985 (Ext.P9), the petitioner was reinstated in service as Village Extension Officer Gr.II as per order dated 24-9-1990 issued by the Commissioner for Rural Development and he joined duty on 1-10-1990. By G.O.(P) No.503/91/RDD dated 28-12-1991, the period from 18-3-1987 to 1-10-1990 was regularised as duty for all purposes other than pay and allowances. Thereafter he was regularised in service in terms of G.O.(P) No.372/85/GAD dated 6-9-1985 with effect from 6-9-1985, the date of the said Government Order, in tune with W.P.(C) No. 31254 of 2008 2 the stipulations in paragraph 2(i) of thereof. In this writ petition the petitioner claims regularisation pursuant to Ext.P9 Government Order with effect from 4-8-1984. 2. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The petitioner was admittedly appointed on a provisional basis under Rule 9(a) (i) of Part II of the Kerala State & Subordinate Services Rules. His appointment was regularised way back in the year 1990 in terms of Ext.P9 Government order dated 6-9-1985. By Ext.P9, persons like the petitioner who were in service as on 2-8-1984 on a provisional basis were regularised in service. The regularisation contemplated is with effect from the date of Ext.P9 namely 6-9-1985. What the petitioner now claims is that such regularisation should have been with effect from 4-8-1984. Ext.P9 discloses that by Ext.P1 circular dated 4-8-1984, the Government permitted provisional employees belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes who were in service as on 2-8-1984 to continue in service on a provisional basis. The circular permitted only continuance in service and not regularisation in service. The decision to regularise provisional employees like the petitioner was taken only by Ext.P9 Government order dated 6-9-1985 and the regularisation contemplated thereon is with effect from the date of the order W.P.(C) No. 31254 of 2008 3 namely 6-9-1985. The petitioner who got regularisation only by virtue of Ext.P9 Government order, cannot therefore claim that he should be regularised in service with effect from 4-8-1984. The petitioner cannot in my opinion, seek regularisation ignoring the stipulations in Ext.P9. He cannot also challenge Ext.P9 at this distance of time. The claim made by the petitioner is highly belated and without any merit. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE bps