Gopal Sankar A vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 16652 Ker

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                    PRESENT
                  THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
     WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 20TH SRAVANA, 1943
                         WP(C) NO. 23731 OF 2014
PETITIONER:

              GOPAL SANKAR A.,
              AGED 41 YEARS,
              S/O.AYYAPPAN NAIR, BANGLAVIL HOUSE,
              PUTHUPPALLY SOUTH P.O., KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA.

              BY ADVS.SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN
              SRI.BENOJ C AUGUSTIN
              SMT.J.KASTHURI
              SRI.PRATHAP PILLAI
              SRI.SAIJO HASSAN
              SRI.SEBIN THOMAS


RESPONDENTS:

     1        STATE OF KERALA
              REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
              DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
              SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

     2        INSTITUTE OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT (IHRD),
              REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR,
              INSTITUTE OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT,
              THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

              BY ADVS.SRI.V.A.MOHAMMED, SC, IHRD
              SRI.DEEPU THANKAN, SC, IHRD


OTHER PRESENT:

              SRI JIMMY GEORGE GP


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 23731 OF 2014           -2-




                            JUDGMENT

Petitioner, in this case has sought the indulgence

of this Court on the premise that he had been working

as Workshop Assistant in the College of Engineering,

Poonjar from 08.12.2000. Thereafter, was appointed as

Workshop Assistant in College of Applied Science,

Kuthuparamba from 15.04.2002. His service was

terminated in 2006. Nobody else has been employed in the

respondent's College but only engagement on day to day

basis. Petitioner had been denied the provisional

appointment.

2. Learned counsel representing the 2nd respondent

submitted that in the order Ext.P1 it was clearly stated

that his engagement was on consolidated pay for a period

of 179 days and he would have no claim for regular

appointment under IHRD.

3. I have heard counsel for the parties and

appraised the paper books.

4. This writ petition was filed in the year 2014, but

there was no interim order by this Court.

5. In view of the exigency of services the

respondents have been appointing daily wages employees

as temporary arrangement and not on regular basis. It is

settled law that that the contractual employees cannot be

permitted to continue beyond the period specified and

claim regular appointment. No such case has been made

out to bring the case within the parameters of the

judgment of Honourable Supreme Court in Hargurpratap

singh v. State of Punjab and others [(2008) 2

SCC(L&S) 618].

6. However, the counsel for the petitioner at this

stage submits that the representation already submitted by

the petitioner may be ordered to be considered.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the

matter, I direct the respondents to consider the

representation submitted by the petitioner, in accordance

with law.

Sd/-

AMIT RAWAL JUDGE vv

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 23731/2014

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT-P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 08.12.2000.

EXHIBIT-P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 18.06.2005.

EXHIBIT-P3 TRUE COPY OF THE BIO-DATA OF THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT-P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 15.03.2011 IN W.A.NO.1616/2010 AND CONNECTED CASES.

EXHIBIT-P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.06.2011.

EXHIBIT-P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 10.07.2011 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT-P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN WP(C) 20760/2011 DATED 20.10.2011.

EXHIBIT-P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 06.05.2014.