P B MAJEED Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was working as a temporary Peon under the 3rd respondent-Corporation from 10.3.1983. According to the petitioner, by Ext. P1 order, two gardeners, who were junior to the petitioner, were regularised in service. THErefore, the petitioner is also entitled to regularisation in service is the claim of the petitioner. THE petitioner approached this Court by filing O.P.No. 19978/2000 against the decision in which the petitioner and others filed W.A.No. 3109/2000, in which by Ext. P2 judgment, this Court directed consideration of the claim of the petitioner. But, without considering Ext. P3 representation filed by the petitioner in this regard, the services of the petitioner were terminated by Ext. P4 order. Against the same, the petitioner filed W.P(C) No. 11416/2006 in which by Ext. P5 judgment, this Court directed the 1st respondent to take a decision on the claim for regularisation. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner's claim has been rejected by Ext. P6. THE petitioner is challenging Ext. P6 seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) IN Ext. P6, it is specifically held that a temporary employee who had been appointed on an ad hoc basis due to exigency of service without considering respective merit and ability though they were continued in service have no right to claim for regularization of their temporary service and consequential benefits. I am in full agreement with the same. For public employment all qualified persons are entitled to compete. If one person is appointed without a selection process in which others similarly placed were not given an opportunity to compete, if that employment is regularised, that would offend the fundamental rights of the other faceless persons who are also eligible to be considered for such employment under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of INdia. The petitioner has not undergone any selection process known to law while being employed temporarily. Therefore, if the petitioner's services are regularised that would amount to a back door appointment, which cannot be countenanced in law. The fact that by Ext. P1 order some others were wrongly given such benefits is no reason for this Court to direct that the petitioner also be given that wrong benefit. Negative discrimination is not recognized by law. IN the above circumstances, I do not find any illegality in Ext. P6 and accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.