REJI JOSEPH Vs. K S E B

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this original petition is against the termination of service of the petitioner as Pharmacist under the respondents. Admittedly, he was appointed on a provisional basis under R.9(a)(i) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules. The petitioner's case is that his service cannot be terminated except for appointing a candidate regularly recruited through the Public Service Commission. The petitioner further contends that the view taken in the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in W.A. 358/90 against similar claims put forward by employees appointed provisionally under R.9(a)(i) of K.S. & S.S.R. is liable to be reconsidered in the light of a recent decision of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 2979/92 dt. 12th August, 1992. A photo copy of the judgment of the Supreme Court was made available to this Court by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

(2.) The learned Single Judge, before whom the original petition came up for admission, referred the petition for being considered by a Division Bench.

(3.) The petitioner was appointed under Ext. P1 order dt. 16-1-1992 through Employment Exchange as a Pharmacist purely on a provisional basis. His appointment was under R.9(a)(i) of K.S. & S.S.R. for a period of 179 days or till P.S.C. hands report for duly or till the Board deems it necessary to terminate the service otherwise, whichever is earlier. It was also made clear in the order of appointment that the temporary appointment will not he extended or made permanent under any circumstances and that he will not be entitled to any preferential claim for future appointment against any category in the service of the Board by virtue of the temporary appointment. It was further made clear that he will not be entitled to any notice or pay in lieu of notice or any retrenchment compensation when the temporary engagement is stopped. Accepting all these conditions, the petitioner joined service under the 2nd respondent as pharmacist on a provisional basis. On completion of the period of 179 days, his service was terminated on 23-7-1992. Thereafter, he was reappointed for a further period of 50 days from 26-7-1992 under Ext. P2 order. The above appointment was subject to all the conditions contained in the first order of appointment and it was also made clear that the appointment was for a period of 50 days or till new employment exchange/ P.S.C. hand joins duty, whichever is earlier. The order contained a further condition that the petitioner's appointment will be automatically terminated on expiry of 50 days from the date of joining duly of P.S.C. recruit/new employment exchange hand, whichever is earlier and he will not be given notice of termination in this regard.