JOSE WILSON Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners contend that they have been appointed as empanelled drivers in the 2nd respondent Corporation through the Employment Exchange. Most of them have completed more than a decade in service. They contend that the respondents have now asked them not to attend duty. It is in the above backdrop, the petitioners have approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) The learned standing counsel appearing for the 4th respondent submitted that a Division Bench of this Court in Antony Stejo and Ors. V. State of Kerala and Ors . [2019 (1) KLT 556] has declared the law and has held that the empanelled conductors cannot be regarded as probationers in the service of the KSRTC nor are they entitled to any preferential claim to future appointment. She would also refer to the judgments of a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos.2504 of 2017, 2571 of 2017 and 2573 of 2017, which was upheld by the Apex Court in S.L.P.No.11034 /2019 and it is argued that the modalities of engaging empanelled drivers cannot be continued indefinitely once it is an admitted position that the required strength of drivers on the permanent role is in excess of the required strength. While KSRTC may make suitable arrangements to meet exigencies of a given day, this cannot be a ruse to continue empanelled drivers indefinitely.

(3.) At this stage, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners fervently submitted the 2nd respondent may be directed to consider Ext.P9 on merits and pass appropriate orders.