Kerala High Court
Ramachandran C.K vs Malabar Devaswom Board on 24 May, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 3RD JYAISHTA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 34070 OF 2018
PETITIONER:
1 RAMACHANDRAN C.K.
AGED 54 YEARS
S/O. PAITHAL NAIR K.K, KUNDATHIL HOUSE, NEERAVELI, KANNUR
670701
BY ADVS.
P.NANDAKUMAR
S.ANEESH
SILPA
RESPONDENTS:
1 MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, HOUSEFED
COMPLEX, ERANHIPPALAM P.O, KOZHIKODE 673006
2 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM
BOARD, NEAR THIRUVANGAD TEMPLE, THALASSERY-670103.
3 ADDL.R3 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE (DEVASWOM)
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-
695001. (ADDL.R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 11/02/2019
IN IA.NO.01/2019)
BY ADVS.
SRI. K.M. FAISAL, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SMT. R. RANJANIE, SC, MALABAR DEVASOM BOARD
SMT.P.K.RADHIKA
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
24.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.34070 of 2018
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 24th day of May, 2024
The writ petition is filed by the petitioner who
was appointed in the post of Watchman cum
Sweeper under the Office of the Assistant
Commissioner, Thalassery, under the Malabar
Devaswom Board on 05.09.2013. Ext.P2 order of
appointment reveals that the petitioner was
appointed on a temporary basis under Rule 9(A)(1)
of the Kerala State and Sub-ordinate Services
Rules, for a period of 179 days. Admittedly, the
period of appointment was thus purely on
temporary basis. The petitioner has approached
this Court challenging Ext.P2 and to quash the
same to the extent it stipulates the period of
appointment of the petitioner as Watchman cum
Sweeper under the respondent is only for a period
of 179 days.
2. The respondents 1 and 2 have filed a
counter affidavit, wherein it is said that the post of
Watchman cum Sweeper had been only filled up
from the candidates sponsored by the Employment
Exchange. The Malabar Devaswom Board was
constituted on abolishing of the erstwhile HR&CE
(Admn.) Department, as per HR & CE Amendment
Act, 2008. Therefore, it is the specific case of
respondents 1 and 2 that the petitioner cannot
claim any relief.
3. The 3rd respondent has also filed a
counter affidavit, in which it is specifically averred
in paragraph No.5 as under:-
"It is submitted that since the HR & CE
department was abolished, it is
impossible to fill the vacancies as
contemplated in GO(RT) No.222/2010/RD
dated 8.6.2010. There is no sanctioned
post in Malabar Devaswom Board. No
rules has been approved by the
Government for the recruitment of
employees in Malabar Devaswom Board.
Hence the Board has been functioning
exclusively on the service of the strength
of erstwhile HR & CE (Admn.)
Department. The existing vacancies are
being filled on deputation basis and few
persons were also engaged either on
contract basis through CSTED or through
employment exchange."
4. I have heard Smt.Silpa, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner, Smt.R.Ranjanie,
learned Standing Counsel appearing for
respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Government
Pleader appearing for the 3rd respondent.
5. When the contention of the petitioner is
analyzed in the background of his appointment
under Ext.P2, there cannot be any doubt that the
appointment of the petitioner was only for a period
of 179 days, which is explicitly clear under Ext.P2.
No doubt, petitioner has raised a challenge against
Ext.P2 based on Exts.P6 and P7 judgments. The
aforesaid challenge has to be declined primarily on
the ground of delay. Ext.P2 order of appointment is
dated 05.09.2013, whereas the present writ
petition is filed only 16.10.2018. There is no
averment/explanation in the writ petition as to the
delay caused in challenging the Clause under
Ext.P2 to the extent it holds that the appointment
is purely provisional and limited to 179 days.
Therefore, this Court is not persuaded to entertain
the challenge to Ext.P2.
6. Secondly, even otherwise, it is presumed
that such challenge is maintainable before this
Court, the same cannot be countenanced in the
light of the specific fact that unlike under Ext.P6
judgment, there was no selection process in the
case of the petitioner before the appointment. It is
indisputable that there is no sanctioned post in the
Malabar Devaswom Board, against which the
petitioner was appointed. Admittedly, the
petitioner's services was for 179 days under Rule
9(A)(1) of Kerala State and Sub-ordinate Services
Rules. The petitioner accepted the said
appointment with open eyes and cannot turn round
and contend that his case should have been
treated differently and he was entitled for
regularisation.
In view of the above, this Court finds that
there is no illegality or impropriety in limiting the
claim of the appointment of 179 days, which was
clearly within the domain of the employer. The
claim for regularisation thus cannot be sustained.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order
as to costs.
Sd/-
EASWARAN S.
JUDGE
NB/24-5
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 34070/2018
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF DISABILITY CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY
THE DISTRICT MEDICAL BOARD.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 05.9.2013 ISSUED BY
THE 2ND RESPOND NET.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 13.3.2014 ISSUED BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 18.3.2014 ISSUED BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WA.NO,491 OF 2000
DATED 26.2.2003.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WP(C)NO.34629 OF 2004
DATED 14.7.2006.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WP(C)NO,1015 OF 2005
DATED 09.9.2005
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS: NIL
TRUE COPY
P.A. TO JUDGE
