IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD FEBRUARY 2011 / 4TH PHALGUNA 1932 WA.No. 720 of 2008() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN OP.11096/1999 Dated 01/06/2007 .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 4. ------------------------------------ 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, K.S.E.BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PAKKIL P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY ADV. SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER & 1ST AND ADDL. 5TH RESPONDENTS. ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. P.U.LUKOSE, C.L.R.WORKER, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, PAKKIL P.O., KOTTAYAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS,SC,KPSC FOR R3 SRI.M.P.KRISHNAN NAIR FOR R1 GOVT. PLEADER SM.T K. MEERA THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J. CHELAMESWAR, C.J & ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.A. NO.720 OF 2008 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T Antony Dominic, J First respondent entered service of the Kerala State Electricity Board as a CLR worker with effect from 4.6.1979 and retired from service on 31.10.2000. While continuing in service, he was given the scale of pay as applicable to Mazdoor(Electrical Workers) notionally with effect from 1.10.1992. On the eve of his retirement, in 1999 he filed O.P.No.11096/1999 before this court praying that the appellants be directed to regularize his service with effect from the date of his commencement of his service in 1979 and also to pay arrears with interest at the market rate. By judgment dated Ist June, 2007 learned single Judge of this court held that the petitioner is entitled to have his service regularized with effect from 4.6.1979 and accordingly the Board was directed to revise his retirement benefits. It is aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellants have come up in appeal. 2. We heard the learned counsel for the appellants and also the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent, the WA.No. 720/08 :2 : petitioner in the writ petition. 3. The main contention raised by the counsel for the appellants is that the petitioner was appointed as a CLR worker and that he did not have any right to claim regularization of his service. It is also pointed out that along with the case of several other similarly situated CLR workers, petitioner's name was also sponsored to the PSC to consider him for regularization and that the PSC did not recommend his case for regularization. It is stated that it was therefore that, unlike several others, the petitioner continued without regularization. Learned counsel for the appellant also relied on the Apex Court judgments in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. V. Umadevi and Ors.(2006(4)SCC 1) and Official Liquidator V. Dayanand & Ors. (2008(10)SCC 1) and contended that in view of these judgments of the Apex Court his claim was totally unsustainable. 4. The fact that the first respondent was only a CLR worker is undisputed. It is also evident from the pleadings that while he was continuing as such his name was also sponsored for regularization and that the PSC did not recommend his name for regularization. If that be so, the first respondent could not have WA.No. 720/08 :3 : contended that while he was continued as CLR worker, many of the CLR workers were regularized in the service of the Board. Therefore his plea that he was discriminated has to fail. 5. It is also noticed that the first respondent had no case that his recruitment to the Service of the appellants was in terms of the Rules governing the direct recruitment. If that be so, his very entry in the service is illegal, in which event, in view of the principles laid down by the Apex court in the judgments referred above, such an appointee cannot claim regularization. In such a case this court will not be justified in directing regularization of a person who has entered service through illegal means. 6. Therefore, we set aside the judgment of the learned single judge. Writ Appeal is allowed and the Original Petition will stand dismissed. (J. CHELAMESWAR) CHIEF JUSTICE (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WA.No. 720/08 :4 :