A LAKSHMYKUTTY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners two in number are working as Lady Village Extension Officers. They were appointed temporarily for 180 days under R.9(a)(i) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, hereinafter referred to as the General Rules. In pursuance to the order of temporary appointment dated 31-3-1990, they entered service in early September, 1990. The term of 180 days is due to expire on 8-3-1991. They want to continue in service even after the expiry of that term. Hence this Original Petition.

(2.) A copy of this Original Petition was served on the learned Government Pleader. He was also heard.

(3.) The main argument advanced by the learned counsel representing the petitioners is that the period of 180 days prescribed in the second proviso to R.9(a)(i) of the General Rules is arbitrary and violative of Art.14 of the Constitution of India. According to the counsel, the state should not restrict the term of appointment even if it is a temporary appointment. Consequently it is contended that the fixation of 180 days as the term of appointment of a temporary appointee is arbitrary. I am not impressed with this argument. R.9(a)(i) of the General rules comes into play only in cases of emergency. Where it is necessary in the public interest, owing to an emergency which has arisen to fill up a vacancy immediately and there would be undue delay in making such appointment in accordance with the general rules and the Special Rules, can the appointing authority by invoking the power under R.9(a)(i) appoint a person dehors the provisions contained in the rules. This appointment made temporarily cannot be for indefinite duration. It is so because the temporary appointment is resorted to only to meet the emergency situation. Only when a regular appointment in conformity with the General Rules and Special Rules is found to be time consuming can the temporary appointment be resorted to. At the earliest opportunity that vacancy should be filled up in strict compliance with the provisions of the General Rules and the Special Rules. So as a stop gap arrangement the temporary appointments are effected. If the temporary appointments are to be of indefinite duration, it will go to defeat the provisions of the General Rules and the Special Rules governing regular appointment: Therefore it is highly necessary to fix a term of appointment under R.9(a)(i) of the General Rules. Government thought it fit to fix the term at 180 days. I do not find any illegality or impropriety in fixing the term. The wisdom in fixing that period is not open to judicial review because, the Government is bound to fix a term for the temporary appointment. It is not for the court to substitute that period with another on the ground that it will be more appropriate. The fixation of this term of 180 days can by no stretch of imagination be considered as arbitrary because it applies to all temporary appointments under R.9(a)(i) of the General rules. All temporary appointments are being treated equally, in the sense that the appointees have to vacate the post on the expiry of the period of 180 days. So it is not violative of Art.14 of the Constitution.