SASIDHARAN Vs. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN all these Original Petitions, petitioners are provisional employees appointed under Rule 9 (a) (i) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules. They have approached this Court apprehending termination of their service.

(2.) PETITIONERS, having been appointed under Rule 9 (a) (i)of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, (for short 'the rules') have no right to continue in service beyond the term of their appointment. A Division Bench of this court in the decision reported in sini P. Kuriakose v. State of Kerala (1987 (2) KLT 425), held that when appointments are made under a statutory provision for a definite period, it is not possible to spell out any law to the effect that contrary to the said statute the appointee is entitled to continue in service beyond the period for which he was appointed in accordance with the statute. The power of this Court is to keep within bounds of law and not to issue directions contrary to law. Therefore, it was held that provisional employees have no statutory right to continue in service and they cannot be allowed to remain in service against the statutory rules. This decision has been taken up in appeal before the Supreme court by way of S. L. P. No. 12345/87, but the same was dismissed. Therefore, it has to be held that the principles laid down by the Division Bench of this court has been approved by the Supreme Court. Thereafter, a Division Bench of this Court, in the decision reported in Dr. Santhosh Babu v. State of Kerala (1990 (1) KLT 68 (SN)) followed the same principle and held that provisional hands cannot claim any right higher than the one which the statute has prescribed, nor can they claim any right inconsistent with the statutory provisions. It was further held that a provisional employee has no right to continue in service beyond the statutory period, against the statutory provisions, and that there is no provision of law on the basis of which a person appointed under rule 9 of the Rules can claim regularisation in service.

(3.) EXAMINING the scope of Rule 9 (a) (i) of the Rules, the supreme Court observed that: "these rules would undoubtedly be statutory in character in their application to the members of the Kerala Subordinate services for whom they were enacted but when any other statutory authority adopts them by a resolution for regulating the services of its staff, the rules do not continue to remain statutory in their application to the staff of that authority. " Therefore, the Water Authority's case cannot bean authority for the proposition that whenever provisional appointments are made under R. 9 (a) (i) of the Rules, they have a right to be regularised in service if their appointment is continued beyond the period of 180 days.