P V UDAYAKUMAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is against the judgment in O.P.No.535.8Y2002 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. The appellants are the petitioners in the Original Petition.

(2.) The appellants are conductors appointed in the KSRTC on a provisional basis. They have filed Ext. P7 representation claiming regularisation in service. '. In the writ Petition they sought a direction to respondents 1 to 3 to pass appropriate orders on Ext. P7 representation dated 6.2.2002. They also prayed for a declaration that the respondents have no authority to make appointments over and above 1545 vacancies of conductors notified as per Ext. P6 dated 25.11.1997. There was also a prayer for restraining respondents 1 to 3 from terminating the services of the petitioners until a final decision was taken on Ext. P7. The learned Single Judge dismissed the Original Petition holding that provisional appointees like the petitioners in the Original Petition have no right to claim regular appointment. The learned Single Judge also rejected the contention that the respondents have no authority to make appointments over and above 1545 vacancies mentioned in Ext. P6 notification of the public Service Commission. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge this appeal has been filed by the petitioners in the Original Petition.

(3.) Having heard learned counsel for the appellants and having perused the materials placed on record, we do not find any valid reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. The learned Single judge was right in holding that provisional appointees like the appellants have no enforceable legal right for regularisation of their services. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was also justified in refusing to grant the relief of directing the respondents to consider and dispose of Ext. P7 and to allow the petitioners to continue in service till the disposal of Ext. P7.