IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 17TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 32395 of 2004(F) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- JOY.Y., S/O.YOHANNAN, TECHNICIAN GRADE-II (BOILER), KOLLAM DAIRY OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REGIONAL MILK PRODUCERS UNION, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (DAIRY), GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DAIRY, PATTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REGIONAL MILK PRODUCERS UNION, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SRI.B.S.SWATHI KUMAR, SPL.GP SRI.B.S.KRISHNAN(SR.), SC, MILMA R3 BY ADV.SRI.K.ANAND (A.201) SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. RAVIKRISHNAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.32395/2004 F APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER NO.QD/PD/EST-1/V-II/ 2889 DTD. 20/11/1995. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.H2-13196/97 DTD. 20/09/1997. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.H2-13196/97 DTD. 23/10/1997. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO.1606/99/AD DTD. 13/10/1999. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P.NO.26503/1999 DTD. 19/03/2004. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO.1675/04/AD DTD. 28/10/2004. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE FORMAT OF APPOINTMENT ORDER DTD. 19/03/1993. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE EXTENSION OF APPOINTMENT ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF SRI.R.T.SANIL DTD. 31/07/1997. EXT.P9; COPY OF THE EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DTD. 6/09/1997. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY ON 13/05/2004. EXT.P11: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DTD. 10/10/2005. 3RD RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R3(A)1: COPY OF APPOINTMENT LETTER DTD. 20/11/95 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.R3(A)2: COPY OF APPOINTMENT LETTER DTD. 24/02/95 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.R3(A)3: COPY OF APPOINTMENT LETTER DTD. 22/05/96 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. Kss ..2/- ...2.... WPC.NO.32395/2004 F EXT.R3(A)4: COPY OF APPOINTMENT LETTER DTD. 19/08/96 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.R3(A)5: COPY OF APPOINTMENT LETTER DTD. 21/11/96 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.R3(A)6: COPY OF APPOINTMENT LETTER DTD. 20/02/97 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.R3(A)7: COPY OF APPOINTMENT LETTER DTD. 28/05/97 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.R3(A)8: COPY OF APPOINTMENT LETTER DTD. 27/08/97 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.R3(B)1: COPY OF JOINING REPORT DTD. 23/11/95 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.R3(B)2: COPY OF JOINING REPORT DTD. 25/02/96 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.R3(B)3: COPY OF JOINING REPORT DTD. 26/05/96 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.R3(B)4: COPY OF JOINING REPORT DTD. 27/08/96 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.R3(B)5: COPY OF JOINING REPORT DTD. 28/11/96 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.R3(B)6: COPY OF JOINING REPORT DTD. 01/03/97 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.R3(B)7: COPY OF JOINING REPORT DTD. 02/06/97 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.R3(B)8: COPY OF JOINING REPORT DTD. 03/09/97 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.R3(C): COPY OF ADVERTISEMENT PUBLISHED IN SAHAKARANA MEGHALA DAILY ON 14/06/94. /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = WP(C).No.32395 of 2004-F = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 6th day of February, 2008. JUDGMENT 1.Petitioner was nominated by the Employment Exchange for being considered for appointment as Technician Grade-II on temporary basis in the service of Thiruvananthapuram Regional Milk Producers' Union, a co-operative society. On 23- 11-1995, he started working on temporary basis. Though initially the engagement was for a period of three months, such engagement continued, the last among the postings was on 27-8-1997 and he reported for duty on 3-9-1997. Thereafter, issues arose as to whether he could be regularized in employment. The petitioner had objected to certain direct recruitments. That ultimately reached this Court and Ext.P5 judgment was issued. It was then noticed by this Court that Sri.R.T.Sanal and Sri.S.Raju were also appointed WP(C)32395/2004 -: 2 :- on temporary basis, however that they were thereafter regularized. 2.Without forgetting that a temporary recruit does not, by such appointment, get any statutory right for regularization and also the fact that the petitioner was nominated by the Employment Exchange, a perusal of Ext.P5 judgment would show that this Court had taken the definite view that qualitatively, there is no distinction between the mode of entry of Sri. R.T.Sanal and Sri.S.Raju and the petitioner and it may not be proper to deal with the petitioner, in any manner, different from the other two. This Court held that in the matter of status, there was basically no difference between the petitioner and the other persons. This view was also in consonance with the view already taken by the Deputy Director. Noticing such facts, this Court held that if in the case of a few such employees regularization could be issued, there is no WP(C)32395/2004 -: 3 :- reason to discriminate the petitioner. The order, which was challenged in that writ petition, was accordingly set aside. This Court concluded definitely that the failure to regularize the petitioner would amount to hostile discrimination. That judgment was delivered inter partis. 3.Thereafter, while considering the case following Ext.P5 judgment, the Government have taken the view in Ext.P6 that the appointment of Sri.R.T.Sanal and Sri.S.Raju were for longer periods and were on the basis of public advertisements and interview, though such appointments were also temporary. But, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was also subjected to a process of selection and it was the employer society which did not advertise vacancies but had only called for nominations from the Employment Exchange. May be, the society did so at that point of time because in their then assessment, WP(C)32395/2004 -: 4 :- it was not necessary to make temporary appointments for longer periods and the initial engagement was only for shorter duration. But the fact remains that the quality of the appointment of Sri.R.T.Sanal and Sri.S.Raju on the one hand and the petitioner on the other were compared and this Court had concluded that it would be unreasonable and discriminatory to exclude the petitioner's request for regularization. This Court having taken such a view in Ext.P5, the Government ought to have exercised its statutory power and issued orders in consonance with what has been stated in Ext.P5 judgment. The impugned Ext.P6 runs contrary to the clear findings in Ext.P5, though that judgment does not enter in issuing a specific direction to regularize the service of the petitioner. 4.For the foregoing reasons, the impugned Ext.P6 is quashed and it is declared that the petitioner is entitled to be absorbed into the regular service WP(C)32395/2004 -: 5 :- of the third respondent. 5.The writ petition is allowed as above. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/