IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2009 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 30731 of 2008(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MEERA JAYAPRAKASH, HOUSE NO.77, LAKSHMI, ANJALI NAGAR, PALLITHOTTAM, KOLLAM-6. BY ADV. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN SRI.K.K.GOPINATHAN NAIR SRI.M.R.JAYAPRASAD SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No. 30731 of 2008 -------------------------- Dated this the 18th March,2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner was working as ICDS Supervisor under the Integrated Child Development Scheme. She was attached to the ICDS, Edakkad in Kannur district. 2. The said project is implemented by the Government of Kerala as per the Financial Assistance rendered by the Government of India. 3. Initially 180 supervisors were appointed on a contract basis in the year 1984. Even though the petitioner was appointed initially for a period of two years she was allowed to continue up to July 2000. When steps were taken to terminate the services of persons like the petitioner some of the similarly placed contract employees approached this Court by filing O.P No.8537 of 1997. Exhibit -P2 is the judgment therein. 4. During 1999, the Special Rules were framed by the Government of Kerala based on which the W.P ( C) No. 30731 of 2008 2 appointment to the post of Supervisor is fixed in the ratio of 2:1:1 from among open quota, Anganwadi Workers and promotion from the feeder categories. It is pointed out by the petitioner that based on Exhibit-P2 judgment some of them who were working on contract basis were absorbed. Later from the rank list published by the Public Service Commission on 6.2.2001 270 persons were appointed and the said rank list expired on 5.2.2004. Government by order G.O (MS) No.33/2001/SWD dated 31.3.2004 directed the 2nd respondent to appoint 50 persons on contract basis from the expired rank list. They were appointed in the quota available for promotion. 5. Petitioner submits that since she had 5 ½ years experience, she had a better claim for appointment on contract basis and accordingly petitioner and similarly placed persons approached the Government with a representation. The same is produced as Ext.P3. 6. As no action was taken on the representation, some of the parties therein approached this Court by filing WPC No.19899 of 2004 which was disposed of by Exhibit- W.P ( C) No. 30731 of 2008 3 P4 judgment. The request thus made by the petitioners therein was rejected as per Exhibit-P5. Again the same was challenged before this Court in WPC No.13307 of 2005. By Exhibit-P6 judgment, this Court found that the order impugned therein was passed without proper application of mind and the same was quashed. The Government was directed to consider the matter afresh and pass appropriate orders after considering the request made by them and having regard to the relevant facts and circumstances. 7. According to the petitioner, all the petitioners in the writ petitions are similarly placed like the petitioner. But when the Government order was passed as per Exhibit-P7 the benefit was confined only to 17 persons who filed the writ petition. As per Exhibit-P7 these 17 persons were appointed on contract basis. Exhibit-P8 is the posting order given by the 2nd respondent. Petitioner along with others filed WPC No.28313 of 2005. Again this Court by Exhibit-P9 judgment directed the respondent to take a decision on the representation in the light of Exhibit-P7 Government Order within one month from the date of W.P ( C) No. 30731 of 2008 4 receipt of a copy of that judgment. In the reply given as Exhibit-P10 it is pointed out that there are no vacancies in existence and the appointment is to be done through the rank list published by the PSC. Again, Exhibit P11 representation has been filed by the petitioner pointing out that the rank list published by the PSC is not existing and there are existing vacancies also to accommodate the persons like the petitioner. 8. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, the 2nd respondent has filed a statement. It is stated therein that 17 persons were given posting on contract basis and they were allowed to continue on the basis of Exhibit-P6 judgment. It is pointed out that the post of ICDS Supervisor is included in the relevant Special Rules and and the appointment is regulated by the ratio fixed therein. At present there are 147 vacancies of ICDS Supervisors in the quota available for direct recruitment and 32 vacancies for promotion from the feeder categories. All the 147 vacancies were reported to the PSC and they have already published a notification to that effect. It is W.P ( C) No. 30731 of 2008 5 further pointed out that 17 persons mentioned in the writ petition were given appointment as ICDS Supervisor on contract basis against the vacancies earmarked for Anganwadi Workers. As and when the PSC hands are advised the services of these contract appointees will be terminated. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is also entitled for the similar treatment as was given to the persons covered by Exhibits P7 and P8. It is pointed out that even going by the averments in the statement, it is based on the directions issued by this Court in Exhibit-P6 that the said persons were given appointment. Even though some of the vacancies have been reported to the PSC, it is submitted that there is nothing which restricts the power of the respondents to consider the petitioner's claim for a contract appointment. 10. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner as she is also a similarly placed as that of the 17 persons covered by Exhibit-P7 in any of the vacancies for a W.P ( C) No. 30731 of 2008 6 contract appointment. Appropriate orders shall be passed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No. 30731 of 2008 7 W.P ( C) No. 30731 of 2008 8