C. SADASIVAN PILLAI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred by 11 petitioners and the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Provisional Conductors Union against the judgment of the learned Single Judge in O.P. No. 13390 of 1991-R dated 20-12-1991, by which the Writ Petition was dismissed. The relief claimed in the Writ Petition was for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (2nd respondent) to regularise the service of petitioners 1 to 11 and other similarly situated persons who are members of the 12th petitioner - union in the post of Conductor in the above said Corporation. A further mandamus is sought for restraining the Corporation from terminating the services of petitioners 1 to 11, and other similarly situated persons, who are members of the 12th petitioner union.

(2.) Petitioners 1 to 11, and members of the 12th petitioner union were originally appointed as conductors provisionally in the Corporation In 1979. They continued In service for about 9 months continuously, and were later reemployed in service in 1983, and they continued uninterruptedly for a period of four years till 1987. On 27-8-1987 the services of petitioners 1 to 11 were terminated, but petitioners 1 to 11 were once again reemployed by the Corporation from 27-8-1990. Petitioners 1 to 11 were in service at the time when the writ Petition was filed, and they sought the relief of regularisation of their service. They contended that there are 750 vacancies in the post of Conductor, and that even if the public service commission recommends certain candidates to be appointed A as conductors, there would still be vacancies to accommodate the petitioners. It is stated that the petitioners are fully qualified to hold the post of Conductor, and have long experience. It is stated that Art.14 and 21 will be violated, if the petitioners' services were not regularised. The learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition stating that the petitioners cannot prevent the Corporation from making appointments through the Kerala Public Service Commission. Merely because the petitioners and some others were appointed as provisional conductors in the Corporation, they do not get any superior right to prevent the regular hands selected by the Public Service Commission being appointed. The learned Single Judge further held that if the request of the petitioners is allowed, it would virtually result in the denial of job to those persons who have been selected by the Public Service Commission after a written test and interview. The Writ Petition was therefore dismissed in limine.

(3.) In this appeal, learned counsel for the appellants - petitioners, Shri N. Nandakumara Menon, contended that this Court under Art.226 of the Constitution of India can direct that petitioners 1 to 11, and members of the 12th petitioner, will be regularised on account of their long service. He contended that at any rate this Court could direct the Corporation to have the services of the petitioners regularised through the Public Service q Commission. Four decisions of the Supreme Court have been relied upon for contending that this Court can issue a direction that by framing a scheme, the services of casual employees will be regularised.