IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014/26TH BHADRA, 1936 WA.No. 703 of 2007 ( ) ----------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 3408/2005 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ---------------------------------- G.PRAKASH, E/DRIVER, K.S.R.T.C ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.P.HARIDAS RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM KERALA. 2. DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR,SC,KSRTC THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17-09-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN & P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JJ. --------------------------- W.A.No.703 of 2007 -------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of September, 2014 J U D G M E N T Ravindran, J. The appellant is the unsuccessful petitioner in W.P.(C) No.3408 of 2005. The writ petition was filed seeking a declaration that he is entitled to be regularised in service on the ground that he has completed 240 days of continuous service as Driver in the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation. The respondents opposed the writ petition contending inter alia that the petitioner was engaged as Driver on an ad hoc basis pursuant to his appointment under rule 9(a) (1) of Part II of the KS&SSR and therefore, he is not entitled to regularisation in service. It was also stated that the petitioner's service was dispensed with in the year 2000. 2. A learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that a provisional employee appointed under rule 9(a)(1) of Part II of the KS&SSR has no right to continue in service or regularisation. A Full Bench of this Court has in Radha v. District Medical Officer (2002 (2) KLT 711) held that a provisional employee appointed under rule 9(a)(1) of Part II of the KS&SSR has no right to be regularised in W.A.No.703/2007 2 service or even to be re-appointed. In the light of the binding decision of this Court, we are of the considered opinion that no exception can be taken to the observations and findings of the learned single Judge in the impugned judgment. We accordingly hold that there is no merit in the instant writ appeal. It fails and is accordingly dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE) P.B.SURESH KUMAR, (JUDGE) vps