SUBASH K.V. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As these writ petitions involve a common issue, they are taken up for consideration together and disposed by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, the reference to facts and exhibits is from W.P.(C)No.8398/2016. It is to be noted, however, that the factual aspects as regard the manner of regular appointment of the petitioners in the other writ petitions is slightly different from the manner of appointment of the petitioners in W.P. (C)No.8398/2016.

(2.) The petitioners in all these writ petitions are persons who were included in the rank list dated 18.09.2001 that was prepared by the Public Service Commission (PSC) for the post of 'Reserve Conductors' in the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC). The rank list remained valid till 31.12.2004 and while the respondent Corporation had notified vacancies to the post of Reserve Conductors during the said period, on account of the financial constraints experienced by the respondent Corporation, there was no advice effected by the PSC to the vacancies reported by the Corporation. It would appear, however, that the petitioners herein were appointed as Reserve Conductors on daily wage basis through Ext.P1 series of appointment orders, taking note of their placement in the rank list that was prepared by the PSC. The petitioners were subsequently advised through the PSC in 2007 and 2008 as evident by Ext.P2 series of advises and they were appointed on regular basis by Ext.P3 series of appointment orders. In the case of the petitioners in the other writ petitions (W.P.(C)Nos.11704/2016, 23772/2016 and 32755/2016), the regular appointment was not pursuant to any advice through the PSC but consequent to a regularisation order dated 22.12.2011 passed by the Government, which is produced as Ext.P11 in the said writ petitions. In the writ petitions, the petitioners essentially contend that, although they were regularly appointed through the appointment orders aforementioned, their regular appointment should take effect from the date on which they were engaged on daily wage basis pursuant to Ext.P1 series of appointment orders. They base their contentions on Ext.P5 judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1631/2007 where, after referring to the vacancies that were reported by the respondent Corporation to the post of Reserve Conductors during the time when the rank list dated 18.09.2001 was valid, the Division Bench observed that at least 2212 vacancies should have been filled from the list as those vacancies arose before the expiry of the rank list on 31.12.2004. It was then noticed that although more than 5000 vacancies were still existing, there was no list that was valid at the relevant point of time and it was likely that some more time would elapse before finalisation of a fresh rank list. Taking note of the fact that out of the 2212 vacancies reported, only 869 were advised pursuant to the interim orders passed by the writ court, it was felt that the PSC had to immediately advise another 1343 candidates from the rank list which expired on 31.12.2004, and for accommodating whom vacancies already existed. Taking cue from the said observations of the Division Bench, it is the contention of the learned senior counsel, Sri.Jaiju Babu appearing on behalf of the petitioners in W.P. (C)No.8398/2016, that since the petitioners in the said writ petition were persons who were appointed on daily wage basis taking note of their position in the rank list prepared on 18.09.2001, which remained valid till 31.12.2004, the mere fact that they were subsequently advised through PSC only in 2007 and 2008 ought not to be held against them in their claim for regular appointment with effect from the date of original appointment on daily wage basis. It is pointed out that their entitlement to regular appointment stems from their position in the rank list prepared by the PSC and the mere delay in their actual advice by the PSC could not take away their entitlement for appointment from the date of their initial engagement on daily wage basis. In the writ petition they challenge Ext.P14 order dated 11.11.2015 that was passed by the respondent Corporation rejecting their request for according retrospectivity to their regular appointment with effect from the date of their engagement on daily wage basis.

(3.) In the case of the petitioners in W.P.(C)Nos.11704/2016, 23772/2016 and 32755/2016, while they too were employed on daily wage basis, taking note of their position in the rank list dated 18.09.2001, their regularisation in service was through a Government Order dated 22.12.2011 and not pursuant to any belated advice by the PSC. In the said writ petitions, the petitioners impugn Ext.P10 order of the respondent Corporation whereby a similar claim for treating their regularisation as retrospective from the date of their initial engagement on daily wage basis was rejected by the respondent Corporation.