RAJAN Vs. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Appeal is preferred against the judgment of the learned Single Judge in O. P. No. 8700 of 1991-1 dated 15-10-1991 dismissing the Writ Petition. The Writ Petitioners are the appellants.

(2.) The first writ petitioner was appointed as Mazdoor in the Kerala State Electricity Board as per an order passed by the 2nd respondent on 30-1-1991. A true copy of the said order is marked as Ext. P 1. As per Ext. P-1, the appointment of the first petitioner was on a temporary basis for a period of 179 days or till the Public Service Commission hands report for duty or as and when the Board deems it necessary to terminate the service of the first petitioner. The second petitioner was appointed as meter reader as per another order of the second respondent passed on 30-1-1991. The terms of appointment are identical. Both the petitioners were appointed in accordance with the recommendation of the Employment Exchange. The first petitioner joined duty on 8-2-1991 in the Electrical Section at Mukkam, while the second petitioner joined duty on 7-2-1991 in the Electrical Section, Kuttiady. The term of appointment of the first petitioner expired on 5-8-1991, and that of the second petitioner on 4-8-1991. The petitioners contended that the Public Service Commission has not so far advised for appointment any regular candidates in the post held by the petitioners. According to them, even the necessary test to be conducted by the Public Service Commission has not yet been conducted. The grievance of the petitioners is that in certain posts in the Board several temporary employees have been allowed to continue in service without any break. For example, in the post of linemen 172 persons were continuing in service, even after the expiry of their term of appointment. It is stated that the said 172 persons approached the Supreme Court by filing W.P. No. 514 of 1988. It is stated that the said Petition has been remitted to this Court for disposal, and that the petitioners therein are continuing in service since February, 1989. It is also stated that the Board is permitting the said persons to continue in service from time to time. According to the petitioners, the Board is discriminating in its attitude towards linemen who have been appointed on a provisional basis, and in not extending the same benefit to Mazdoors and Meter Readers. It is stated that the Board is taking emergent steps to terminate the service of the petitioners, along with 97 others, who are similarly situated. The other 97 persons have been" appointed either as Mazdoors or Meter Readers in the Kozhikode District. The services of these Mazdoors and Meter Readers are now threatened to be terminated, while the Board is retaining the 172 linemen. It is also stated on grounds E and F that the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of the Industrial Disputes Act, and in particular S.25H.

(3.) The learned Single Judge directed the respondents to file a statement in regard to 172 linemen who were allowed to continue in service since February, 1989. It is stated that the first respondent had filed a statement dated 27-9-1991 explaining the circumstances under which the said 172 persons had been allowed to continue by granting them the benefit of the provisions contained in S.25H of the Industrial Disputes Act. It was also stated that those persons continued in service for along period under orders of stay obtained from court. The respondents also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in W.P. Nos. 618,1075 of 1990 and 70 and 229 of 1991, wherein it has been held that the provisional employees appointed under R.9(a)(i) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules have no right to continue in service beyond the period of their appointment. The learned Single Judge also referred to the decisions relied on by the petitioners in O.P. No. 7179 of 1985 and O.P. No. 2789 of 1986 granting provisional appointees the benefit of the provisions of S.25H of the Industrial Disputes Act. After referring to the submissions of the writ petitioners' counsel, as stated above, the learned Single Judge observed as follows: