IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 30TH JULY 2009 / 8TH SRAVANA 1931 WA.No. 1673 of 2009() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.6510/2009 Dated 07/07/2009 .................... APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS: -------------- 1. LALGIMON K.C WATCHER-CUM-PEON, COLLEGE OF APPLIED SCIENCE CHEEMANI, KASARGOD DISTRICT. 2. N.V.ANILKUMAR WATCHER-CUM-PEON, COLLEGE OF APPLIED SCIENCE CHEEMANI, KASARGOD DISTRICT. 3. K.J.VARGHESE WATCHER-CUM-PEON, COLLEGE OF APPLIED SCIENCE KUTHUPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT. 4. C.SACHEENDRA BABU WATCHER-CUM-PEON, COLLEGE OF APPLIED SCIENCE KUTHUPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.A.FIROZ SRI.GEORGE MECHERIL RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN THE W.P.(C): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. THE INSTITUTE OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT (IHRD) PROJOE TOWERS VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR) THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T.RAVIKUMAR,JJ. -------------------------------- W.A.No.1673 OF 2009 -------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. The appellants/petitioners are daily wage employees working under the 2nd respondent. They say they were working for the last 8 years continuously. Now the 2nd respondent has taken steps to make regular appointment to the said post by issuing Ext.P10 notification. The petitioners feeling aggrieved by the steps taken for direct recruitment without regularising them, the Original Petition was filed. According to them, persons, engaged earlier, have been regularised subsequent to the appointment of the petitioners. But, the learned Single Judge relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (3) & Others [2006 (4) SCC 1] dismissed the Writ Petition. Hence, this appeal. If the 2nd respondent itself regularised the appellants, it is a different matter. The said respondent may have regularised W.A.No.1673/2009 2 daily wage employees earlier also. But, for this Court to issue a writ of mandamus, the appellants should have a legal right and the respondents should have a corresponding duty. We do not find any such right in provisional appointees engaged on daily wage basis. It is common ground that they were selected not on being sponsored by the Employment Exchange or pursuant to any notification. The appointing authority has engaged persons of their choice. The claim of such persons for regularisation cannot be granted in the face of the decision of the Apex Court in Uma Devi (3) mentioned above. Though the two Judge Bench of the Apex Court in U.P. State Electricity Board v. Pooran Chandra Pandey [2007(4) KLT 513] have taken a slightly different view concerning the impact of Uma Devi (3), we are absolutely bound by the said decision of the Constitution Bench. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the decision of the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) ps