IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2009 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 16257 of 2008(I) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- SMT. L.ZEENA, PONGARATHALA HOUSE EAST THOPPIL ROAD, P.O. ANAYARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. MR.S.EASWARAN, MR.P.MURALEEDHARAN (IRIMPANAM). RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ANTONY MUKKATH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/06/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.16257/2008-I: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 13TH NOVEMBER, 2006 IN W.P.(C). NO.38651/2003. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD. 3RD DECEMBER, 2006 BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER SENT ALONG WITH EXT.P.1. JUDGMENT. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF G.O.(P).NO.85/2007/SWD DTD. 30/11/2007 ISSUED BY THE R.1. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 09/01/2008 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECRETARY, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT OF THE R.1. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE G.O.(P).NO.90/07/SWD DTD. 24/12/2007 ISSUED BY THE R.1. EXT.P.6: COPIES OF RELEVANT PAGES OF EXT.P.3. DTD. 30/11/2007. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R2.A: COPY OF THE LETTER NO. C1/721/07 DTD. 11/04/07 SENT BY THE EMPLOYMENT OFFICER. EXT.R3.A: COPY OF THE G.O.(P).NO.90/07/SWD DTD. 24/12/07. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P.(C) No. 16257 OF 2008 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Heard Sri. S. Easwaran, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Antony Mukkath, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner, a person with disability, was appointed as Typist on a provisional basis through the employment exchange for the period from 9-5-1995 to 4-11- 1995 and from 7-4-1999 to 6-4-2000. It is not in dispute that the petitioner’s appointment during the aforesaid two spells was on contract basis and was not under rule 9(a)(i) of Part II of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules. 3. By Ext.P3 the Government ordered reappointment and regularization of provisional employees appointed through the employment exchanges under rule 9(a)(i) of Part II of the K.S. & S.S.R. during the period from 15-8- WPC 16257/08 2 1998 to 15-8-1999. On the assumption that petitioner belongs to the said category of persons, her name was also included in the list appended to Ext.P3 letter. On noticing that the petitioner was not eligible for re-appointment and regularization, her name was deleted from the list appended to Ext.P3 by Ext.P5 order. Ext.P5 is under challenge in this writ petition, wherein the petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to appoint her as L.D. Clerk/L.D. Typist. 4. The petitioner was admittedly not appointed under rule 9(a)(i) of Part II of the K.S. & S.S.R. Ext.P3 order applies only to persons with disability who were appointed under rule 9(a)(i) of the K.S. & S.S.R. through the employment exchanges during the period from 15-8-1998 to 15-8-1999. The petitioner does not belong to the said category. As a matter of fact, in identical circumstances this Court has in State of Kerala V. Sasikala (2000(1) KLT S.N. 65) and Sasikumr V. Secretary to Government (2000(3) KLT 120) held that persons appointed on daily wages or on WPC 16257/08 3 contract basis cannot claim regularization in service. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the petitioner who was admittedly appointed on contract basis cannot claim regularization. 5. On an earlier occasion also, the Government had regularized the services of persons with disability who were appointed under rule 9(a)(i) of of Part II of the K.S. & S.S.R. during the period from 1-1-193 to 31-7-1994. The benefit of the said Government decision was denied to a person with disability who was appointed on contract basis. The Division Bench of this Court in Sasikumar V. Secretary to Government (Supra) held that only persons appointed under rule 9(a)(i) of Part II K.S. & S.S.R. during the period from 1-1-1993 to 31-7-1994 are entitled to be regularized in service and that persons appointed on daily wages or on contract basis cannot claim such regularization. In my opinion, the issue raised in this writ petition is covered against the petitioner by the decision of this Court in Sasikumar V. Secretary to Government (Supra). A similar WPC 16257/08 4 view has been taken by another Division Bench of this Court in State of State of Kerala V. Sasikala (Supra). In that view of the matter, I hold that the challenge to Ext.P5 is without merit. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. mn.