RANJITH Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner submits that he was appointed as a Driver in the Malabar Devaswom Board on 15.10.2010 on daily wages basis and asserts that he has been continuing in such position until now. His grievance, as projected in this case and as argued by his learned counsel - Sri.K.Mohanakannan, is that even though another person by name Sri.Mahesh was also appointed in similar circumstances by the Devaswom Board earlier, he has been regularised; while he has been denied this benefit by the Government through Ext.P6 order.

(2.) Sri.Mohanakannan thus contends that Ext.P6 is vitiated by non-application of mind, particularly because it has not even considered the impact of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Kerala v. Uma Devi [(2006) 4 SCC 1]. He, therefore, prays that Ext.P6 be set aside and the Board be directed to regularise his client.

(3.) In response, Sri.R.Lakshmi Narayan - learned Standing Counsel for the Devaswom Board, submitted that a statement has been filed on record, wherein it has been stated that the Devaswom Board did not have any regular post of Drivers at the time when the petitioner and Sri.Mahesh had been appointed and that the sanctioning of the post happened much later, which has now led the Devaswom Board to requisition the 4th respondent-Kerala Devaswom Recruitment Board to cause selection, so as to appoint persons on regular basis. The learned Standing Counsel submitted that the assertions of the petitioner as regards Sri.Mahesh is completely without basis, since he still continues as a temporary worker - though has been allotted a scale of pay - but that once the selection is completed by the Devaswom Board in terms of the requisition as aforementioned, he will also have to be removed from service. He, therefore, prayed that this Writ Petition be dismissed.