SAIJA RANI. P Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has been working as a Project Associate in the 3rd respondent Research Centre from 2009 onwards. The petitioner has stated that her appointment to the post was made after issuing employment notification inviting applications in the official website as also in various newspapers including The Hindu, daily. As petitioner is qualified with post graduation in Statistics she submitted her application and was included in the rank list and she was appointed as per Ext.P1 letter dated 26.08.2009, on contract basis for a period of one year or till the completion of the project, whichever is earlier. She was directed to execute an agreement.

(2.) The petitioner submits that she continued without any renewal of agreement till 2011 and thereafter she has been continuing on execution of agreements every year. While working so petitioner came to know that some of the candidates appointed similarly, on contract basis were being absorbed/regularised. The petitioner thereupon submitted Ext.P2 representation on 18.07.2011 requesting for her absorption against existing permanent vacancies. The petitioner stated that one Sri.Sanjai R. J, who was appointed in similar circumstances was regularised and he was appointed as Technical Officer Grade - I granting him relaxation from upper age limit and educational qualifications, as per Ext.P3 order dated 23.11.2013.

(3.) The petitioner therefore submitted another representation Ext.P4. It is stated that while so one Smt.Deepa Radhakrishnan was also regularised with effect from 16.04.2014 as a Technical Officer Grade - I. As there was no positive action in the case of the petitioner and the respondents issued a notification Ext.P8 on 20.07.2017 inviting applications for appointments to various posts including Project Associate, claiming regularisation/absorption against her post, she filed this writ petition. The petitioner alleged that denial of regularisation in her case while granting regularisation to several others appointed in identical circumstances is discriminatory.