LAWS(KER)-2020-3-229

PRIYA E Vs. STATE OF KERALA

Decided On March 17, 2020
Priya E Appellant
V/S
STATE OF KERALA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was appointed as a Field Assistant under the 2 nd respondent initially as per ExtP1 order through Employment Exchange, got further appointment as per Ext.P2 order dated 8.7.2013 again for a period of 179 days. On completion of 179 days, the 3rd respondent issued Ext.P3 order allowing the persons, who were continuing as Field Assistants in Kasaragod, Kannur and Malappuram based on their appointment through Employment Exchange, to continue in service stating that due to scarcity of staff the District Managers had requested for permission for utilising the services of the then incumbents. Their continuance was ratified as per Ext.P3 order issued on 30.01.2014. Thereafter, the services of the petitioner were terminated as per Ext.P4 order dated 6.10.2016 referring to a decision dated 26.09.2016 in the 76th Director Board meeting.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that after her appointment as per Ext.P3 order on 30.01.2014 she was continuing in the post on renewal of contract and that she was again engaged for 179 days on 4.8.2016 and even before completion of the term of appointment, her services were terminated. She pointed out that though the reference in the order of termination was to a decision in the 76 th Director Board meeting, there was no such decision taken in that meeting. Producing the minutes of such decision as Ext.P5, it is the contention of the petitioner that no decision with respect to termination of service of Field Assistants was taken in that meeting. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this court as there was no positive action on her Ext.P7 representation before the Minister for Animal Husbandry submitted on 10.11.2016, stating that there are vacancies of Field Assistants under the 2nd respondent in various Panchayats.

(3.) This Writ Petition was filed on 4.10.2017, challenging the termination of service as per Ext.P4 order dated 6.10.2016, when the petitioner had 4 more months to continue based on her last spell of appointment.