HASIR A Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Writ Petition is filed challenging the decision No.10 in Ext.P4 taken by the 2nd respondent Municipality, by which it was decided to invite fresh applications for selection and appointment to the post of Technical Assistant. It was stated that the petitioner was appointed in the year 2017 as Technical Assistant on contract basis. When the contract period was due to expire on 31.3.2019, the Government issued Ext.P2 order extending the tenure of Technical Assistants in Grama Panchayat for a further period of one year. While so, the Council of the Municipality in its meeting held on 17.4.2019 resolved to invite fresh applications for the post of Technical Assistants. Alleging that the decision as per Exts.P3 and P4 was taken as a result of change in the administration and was politically motivated, the petitioner filed this Writ Petition stating that he was working in the same post at Ramanattukara Panchayat which was converted as Feroke municipality.

(2.) Respondents 2 and 3 have filed a counter affidavit stating that Technical Assistants are appointed in the Local Self Government Institutions for the effective implementation of computerisation and their duties and functions are essentially related to the software maintenance, e-governance and computer related records and to coordinate and effectively implement the computerization in the Municipality. It is stated that in the year 2017 the then incumbent who was appointed after a due process of selection resigned from the post and the Municipality solely on the request of the petitioner engaged him on temporary basis without inviting any application and conducting any selection. It is stated that the decision of the Municipal Council who engaged the petitioner was only a stop gap arrangement. Stating that the petitioner's appointment was not after adopting any transparent procedure, the respondents stated that the Municipal Council had considered the factual situation and resolved not to extend the tenure of appointment. It is stated that on expiry of the term period, the petitioner made a representation for extension of contact period. Thereupon the Municipality examined the same and found it necessary to conduct a fresh selection. It is stated that the documents relating to the qualification or other particulars of the petitioner are not available with the Municipality and there is no proper personal file also available. It is also stated that the petitioner is unaware of any solution for the software issues or effective implementation of the computerization and that he has not contributed anything worth for renewal of contract.

(3.) Even though the counter affidavit was filed on 05.12.2019, the petitioner has not filed any reply affidavit. When the appointment in a Municipality is not made after a due process of selection, i.e, after inviting applications from among qualified hands, Government order which provides for extension of tenure of appointments cannot be made applicable. The orders, if any, passed by the Government could be applicable only against those appointments made by due process of selection. Now the petitioner has continued since the year 2017. Therefore, the petitioner cannot have any right to continue in service on the basis of a contract, which already expired in 2019, though without conducting any selection process. However, it would be open to the Municipality to allow the petitioner to continue till 31.03.2020 in case no alternate arrangement is made for fresh appointment. It is also made clear that the petitioner would be free to submit application as and when notification is issued for fresh selection, in case he is eligible. The Writ Petition is dismissed with the above observations.