NANDAGOPALAN Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR IDUKKI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants were appointed by order dated 21.11.2000 as Village Extension Officers Grade II provisionally under R.9(a)(i) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules for a period of 179 days. It was specifically stipulated in the order of appointment itself that the Heads of Officers would terminate the provisional appointment on completion of 179 days or on joining duty of a regular hand / PSC hand in their place whichever is earlier. Appellants now contend that they are entitled to continue in service beyond 179 days since vacancies are there. We notice that appellants are governed by the terms of their appointment. Having accepted the appointment on the basis of the terms and conditions in the appointment order they are estopped from raising the contention that they are entitled to continue in service beyond 179 days. Counsel for the appellants submitted that service of the appellants could be terminated only on the basis of R.9(a)(iii) of the K.S. & SSR and service of persons who are already in service and seniors to the appellants should be terminated first and only thereafter appellants' service could be terminated. We are of the view R.9(a)(iii) contemplates a situation where service of provisional appointees are terminated during the period of their appointment. The question of seniority under proviso to R.9(a)(iii) can be entertained only during the said period. This is a case where admittedly appellants have completed 179 days and therefore the question of application of proviso to R.9(a)(iii) does not arise. This question has been considered by a Bench of this Court in Sujatha v. State of Kerala ( 2001 (1) KLJ (NOC) 51 ). In such circumstances we find no infirmity in the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The appeal lacks merits and it is accordingly dismissed.