IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2008 / 11TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 10700 of 2008(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ 1. PRAVEEN T.V., LIVESTOCK INSPECTOR GRADE-II,VETERINARY DISPENSARY, KATTAKAMBAL, TRICHUR DISTRICT. 2. GIRIJA P.K., LIVESTOCK INSPECTOR GRADE-II,VETERINARY DISPENSARY VELOOR,TRICHUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.DEEPU THANKAN RESPONDENT: ------------- DISTRICT ANIMAL HUSBANDY OFFICER, THRISSUR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BEJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).10700/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 31st day of March, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioners are appointed as Live Stock Inspectors Grade-II in separate Veterinary Dispensaries in Trichur District, for a period of 179 days, as per Rule 9(a)(i) of Part II of K.S & S.S.R. They complete 179 days on 10.4.2008. According to them, they should be permitted to continue for a period of one year, by virtue of the 4th proviso to Rule 9(a)(i) of the Rules. They refer to Exts.P2 and P3 judgments in this regard. 2. As pointed out by the learned Government Pleader, Exts.P2 and P3 judgments dealt with the cases where the petitioners therein were provisional hands appointed for a period of one year or till the PSC hands joins duty, whichever is earlier. Ext.P3 shows that it dealt with a case where they were appointed for a period of one year, and subsequently there was an attempt to reduce the period as such. This was interdicted by this Court. W.P.(C).10700/2008 2 3. But in the present case, Ext.P1 shows that the petitioners have been appointed for a period of 179 days or till the PSC hands joins duty. The 4th proviso to Rule 9(a)(i) of the Rules must be construed as a provision which enables the Government to effect provisional appointment to the categories mentioned therein beyond the period of 179 days or upto the period of one year notwithstanding the 2nd proviso to Rule 9(a)(i) which interdicts the provisional appointee to be continued for a period exceeding 180 days. In as much as that in the present case, the appointment is restricted to 179 days . I do not find my way to issue a direction to the respondent to permit the petitioners to continue beyond the said period. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there are no PSC hands available and therefore, service of the petitioners will be required. Obviously in such cases, it is open to the respondent to make fresh provisional appointments. If there is nothing which W.P.(C).10700/2008 3 stands in the way of the petitioners’ appointment, they shall also be considered in that regard. Writ petition is disposed of subject to the above directions. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs