GEETHAKUMARAN S Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners 1 & 2 are Security Guards appointed by the Superintendent of General Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram on behalf of the Hospital Development Committee of the hospital. THE 3rd petitioner is an Ophthalmic Assistant appointed under the Hospital Development Committee. THEy were appointed on specific conditions contained in Exts.P1 & P2 appointment orders. THE petitioners challenge the attempt of the respondents to dispense with their services after the period prescribed in their appointment orders. THE petitioners rely on Ext.P3 judgment in a case filed by the Security Guards appointed by Hospital Development Committee of General Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram, wherein this court directed that the petitioners therein should be continued as Security Guards till they attain the age of superannuation, subject to the conditions mentioned therein. THE petitioners also seek similar reliefs.

(2.) THE respondents opposes the prayers with the help of a counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent, wherein the respondents would contend that the petitioners are only provisional employees appointed on certain terms and conditions which include a condition that they are appointed for a specified period mentioned therein and being contract employment under the Hospital Development Committee which is not a statutory body, they cannot seek to continue in service beyond the specified period for which they were so engaged. As far as Ext.P3 judgment is concerned the respondents would take the contention that, that judgment was rendered without adverting to the conditions stated in the appointment order and the agreement executed by the petitioners wherein they categorically accept the condition that their appointment would be for the period mentioned therein and therefore the judgment cannot be a precedent for all times to come. THEy would also submit that the 1st petitioner was relieved of his duties on his request from 15.05.2006.

(3.) I am of opinion that Ext.P3 cannot be followed as a precedent because if it does not lay down any law as such. At the same time when this court grants certain reliefs to a set of persons unless that judgment is reversed by the Division Bench, I do not think that it is just and proper to deny similar reliefs to similarly placed persons. But as far as Ext.P3 judgment is concerned that would be applicable only to petitioners 1 & 2. As between petitioners 1 & 2, in the counter affidavit it is specifically averred that the 1st petitioner was relieved of his duties on his request from 15.05.2006. If that be so, the 1st petitioner cannot claim continuance insofar as he has been relieved on his request. As far as the 3rd petitioner is concerned insofar as Ext.P3 judgment is not applicable to Ophthalmic Assistants, it has to be considered separately. As is clear from Ext.P2, the 3rd petitioner has been appointed on daily wages for a period of one year. Therefore the 3rd petitioner cannot claim to continue in service beyond the period of contract. In the above circumstances this writ petition is disposed of as follows: If the 1st petitioner was relieved of his duty on his request on 15.05.2006 as stated in the counter affidavit which has not been controverted by filing a reply affidavit, the 1st petitioner need not be continued in service. The 2nd petitioner shall be given the benefit of Ext.P3 judgment subject to the conditions mentioned therein. As far as the 3rd petitioner is concerned insofar as her appointment is for a specified period she is not entitled to continue beyond the period prescribed therein. However salary paid to the petitioners during the period when the petitioners 1 & 2 continued in service shall not be recovered from them.