JEEMON V R Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The fate of these writ petitions depends upon the impact of the, decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka, & others v Umadevi (3) & others, 2006 4 SCC 1, commonly referred to as Umadevi (3) case, on their factual matrices and contextual situations. Depending upon its answer, the question whether the orders cancelling regularisation of the petitioners in service call for interference in the light of Umadevi (3) case, on account of violation of the principles of natural justice also crops up for consideration in W.P.(C) Nos. 20687 and 22014 of 2011. In WP(C).Nos. 18036 and 22810 of 2011 the question whether the petitioners are legally entitled to claim for re-engagement and regularisation in service in the light of Umadevi (3) decision also would arise. Narration facts, shorn of details, is required for deciding aforesaid questions.

(2.) Subsequently, as per Ext.P2 Government Order viz., GO(Ms.)No. 1/11/PAD dated 9.5.2011 the services of the petitioners were regularised respectively as Security Guards and Part-Time Sweeper in the Institute. Soon thereafter, as per Ext.P3 viz., GO(Ms)No. 5/11/PAD dated 23.7.2011, Ext.P2 Order of regularization was cancelled pursuant to a decision of the Government to review the appointments and controversial decisions made by the Government after 1.1.2011. Based on ExtP3, the second respondent issued Ext.P4 order dated 26.7.2011 cancelling the appointment of the petitioners. It is challenging Exts.P3 and P4 and also seeking for a declaration that they are entitled to continue in service under the Institute that this writ petition has been filed.

(3.) Considering the contention that Exts.P3 and P4 cancelling their regularization effected as per Ext.P2 without putting them on notice and without affording an opportunity of being heard, this Court passed an interim order on 28.7.2011 requiring the respondents to permit the petitioners to continue in their respective posts. The said order was extended from time to time and on the strength of the said order they are still continuing in service. Relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in State of Hariyana v. State of Punjab & another, 2002 2 SCC 507 that a decision taken by one Government cannot be nullified by the successor Government unless it involves any political philosophy it is contended that the proposal to cancel ExtP2 order is illegal, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Further, it is contended that Exts.P3 and P4 orders were issued violating the principles of natural justice and therefore, they are void and non-est in the eye of law.