Kerala High Court
J. Alexander vs State Of Kerala on 13 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 22ND ASHADHA, 1943
WA NO. 822 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER IN WP(C).4620/2021 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:
1 J. ALEXANDER,
JUNIOR PROJECT ASSISTANT, KERALA STATE BACKWARD DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION, DISTRICT OFFICE, KOLLAM, RESIDING AT TC 9/26,
ZION, KOWDIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695003.
2 UNNIKRISHNAN N.S.,
JUNIOR PROJECT ASSISTANT, KERALA STATE BACKWARD DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION, DISTRICT OFFICE, ERNAKULAM, RESIDING AT KRISHNA
NIVAS, NEDIYARA, NEAR KUTTICHIRA BRIDGE, NORTH PARAVUR, ER-
NAKULAM-683513.
3 SANIL P.S.
JUNIOR PROJECT ASSISTANT, KERALA STATE BACKWARD DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION, DISTRICT OFFICE, ERNAKULAM, RESIDING AT
PULLARKKAT HOUSE, A.K.G.ROAD, EDAPPALLY, KOCHI-682024.
4 SASIKALA P.
RETIRED JUNIOR PROJECT ASSISTANT, KERALA STATE BACKWARD DE-
VELOPMENT CORPORATION, DISTRICT OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
RESIDING AT NIRANJALA, TC 6/722, SRA 156, ILLIPPODE, VATTIY-
OORKAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695013.
5 AJITH K. S.
JUNIOR PROJECT ASSISTANT, KERALA STATE BACKWARD DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION, DISTRICT OFFICE, THRISSUR, RESIDING AT KOLAMDAM
KALATHIL HOUSE, EDATHURUTHY, THRISSUR-680102.
6 GOKULAN C.
JUNIOR ASSISTANT, KERALA STATE BACKWARD DEVELOPMENT CORPORA-
TION, DISTRICT OFFICE, KOZHIKODE, RESIDING AT GOKULAM,
CHEVAYOOR P.O., KOZHIKODE-673013.
BY ADVS.SRI. K.P.SATHEESAN (SR.), SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM)
SRI.K.SUDHINKUMAR, SRI.S.K.ADHITHYAN, SRI.SABU PULLAN,
SRI.GOKUL D. SUDHAKARAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, BACKWARD CLASSES DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-
695001.
2 KERALA STATE BACKWARD CLASSES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, TC NO.27/588(7) AND
(8), PATTOOR, VANCHIYOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695035.
3 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE BACKWARD CLASSES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,
TC NO.27/588(7) AND (8), PATTOOR, VANCHIYOOR P.O., THIRU-
VANANTHAPURAM-695035.
SRI.M.SASINDRAN, SC KSBCDC FOR R2 & R3
SRI.B.UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL, SENIOR GOVT.PLEADER
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.07.2021, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ALEXANDER THOMAS & A. BADHARUDEEN, JJ.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
W.A. No. 822 of 2021
[arising out of the impugned interim order dated 11.6.2021 in
W.P.(C) No. 4620 of 2021]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 13th day of July, 2021
JUDGMENT
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
The appellants herein, who are the petitioners in
WP(C).No.4620/2021 have filed this intra court appeal on being
aggrieved by the impugned interim order dated 11.6.2021
rendered by the learned Singe Judge, whereby interim relief
sought for by them have been denied.
2. We had entertained the above writ appeal only to
consider the limited plea of the appellants to allow them to
provisionally continue in service till regular hands selected by the
Public Service Commission (PSC) are to be accommodated. The
appellants have also a case that they may be provisionally
continue in service in preference to certain contractual appointees
who were given appointment by the respondent Corporation, after
the appointment of the appellants.
3. At the admission stage, we had passed an interim
W.A. No. 822 of 2021
..4..
order on 2.7.2021 in this case ordering that status quo as on that
day be maintained as regards the continuance of service of
appellants for a period of 10 days.
4. Today, when the matter has been taken up for
consideration, Sri.M.Sasindran, learned Standing Counsel for the
Kerala State Backward Classes Corporation, would submit on the
basis of instructions and on the basis of the pleadings in the
affidavit filed by the said party in the WP(C) as well as in the W.A.,
that the 1st appellant/1st petitioner was already terminated from
service on 27.7.2019, and that the 4th appellant/4th petitioner was
relieved from service as early as on 31.7.2019 as she had crossed
58 years of age, and further that the 5th appellant/5th petitioner
was terminated from service on 30.6.2021 and 6 th appellant/6th
petitioner was terminated from service on 11.6.2021, etc. Further,
it is submitted on behalf of the respondent Corporation that the
designation of the posts of some of the appellants are factually
wrong and that the 1st appellant was working as Junior Assistant
and not as Junior Project Assistant, and that the 3 rd appellant/3rd
petitioner was actually working as Office Attendant and not as
W.A. No. 822 of 2021
..5..
Junior Project Assistant, and that the 5 th appellant/5th petitioner
was actually working as Junior Assistant and not as Junior Project
Assistant, etc.
5. The counsel for the appellants have raised certain
disputes that the designation of the 3rd appellant was initially
Junior Project Assistant and was later wrongly shown as Office
Attendant.
6. We are not in a position to entertain this appeal for
resolving any such disputes. As of now, according to the
respondent Corporation, 2nd and 3rd appellants are now
continuing in provisional service as Junior Project Assistant and
Office Attendant respectively, and that this is on the basis of the
interim status quo order passed by this Court on 2.7.2021,
directing maintenance of status quo order as on that day. Without
getting into the merits of the controversy in any manner, we
suggested both sides that it is only in the fitness of things that
both sides should endeavour for final disposal of the main matter
in the O.P., and that the pleadings if any should be completed
without any further delay.
W.A. No. 822 of 2021
..6..
7. Both sides have agreed to the said course of action.
Accordingly, we would request the learned Single Judge to
consider the early final disposal of the present WP(C)
No.4620/2021 without much delay, preferably within 6 weeks if
that is feasible. Further, only for the purpose of preservation of
subject matter of lis, it is ordered that the status quo order passed
by us on 2.7.2021 may be maintained for a period of 6 weeks. If for
any reason, it is difficult to ensure the early final disposal of the
writ petition within the abovesaid period of time limit, then the
learned Single Judge may consider as to whether the abovesaid
interim arrangement passed by us today may continue further,
and decision thereon may be taken after hearing both sides.
Further, we make it clear that the abovesaid interim order will not
stand in the way of the respondents in accommodating regularly
selected PSC hands to the post presently held by 2 nd & 3rd
appellants.
8. The Senior counsel appearing for the appellants have
made a submission that the 5th & 6th appellants have been
terminated from service after the filing of writ petition.
W.A. No. 822 of 2021
..7..
9. The interim order passed by this Court on 2.7.2021 in
this appeal was very clear and it was only to the effect that status
quo as on that day is to be maintained.
10. The Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation
has pointed out that 5th & 6th appellants have been terminated
from service on 30.6.2021 & 11.6.2021 respectively, prior to which
the date on which interim status quo order has been passed by
this Court in this appeal on 2.7.2021.
With these observations and directions, the above
Writ Appeal will stand disposed of.
Sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE
Sd/-
A. BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE
MMG
