SAJU JOSEPH, PALATHINKAL HOUSE Vs. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is challenging Ext.P5 order of the Government, to the extent it declined regularization of his contract appointment as a Last Grade Servant in the 3rd respondent's college. It is stated that the petitioner was continuing as a last grade servant on contract basis from 01.06.2001 onwards. His appointment was not regularized in view of the ban imposed against new appointments, pursuant to de-linking of the pre-degree course from colleges. Subsequently, the Government have issued Ext.P1 order with respect to colleges under 'S.N. Trust' regularizing 137 persons appointed on contract basis as last grade servants. Based on Ext.P1 order, the petitioner and another person had submitted Ext.P2 representation before the Government seeking regularisation. Since the same was not considered they have approached this court in W.P.(C.) No.29030 of 2007. In Ext.P3 judgment the Government was directed to consider the request and to take a decision. It is made clear that the petitioners will be at liberty to rely on Ext.P1 in support of their claim. In the impugned order (Ext.P5) Government declined the request for regularization observing that Ext.P1 is issued as a special case with respect to colleges under S.N. Trust management, because the appointments regularized were made prior to imposition of the ban and that the management was under receivership during the period from 1992-1996. According to the Government, the policy adopted in the case of S.N. Trust as a special case cannot be extended for regularizing appointment of the petitioners. Further it was observed that, in the case at hand the contract appointment was made at a time when ban on appointment was in force and there was no vacancies existing to accommodate the petitioners, at that time.

(2.) CONTENTION of the petitioner is that the findings in Ext.P5 regarding existence of vacancy, is not true and correct. It is contended that the contract appointment was made against an existing vacancy which arose on the basis of fixation of staff strength and the petitioner is still continuing on the basis of such appointment. It is pointed out that the Government had never objected continuance of the petitioner on contract basis and salary has been paid without any objection. It is further contended that, the observations and findings regarding staff strength is made only on the basis of a report obtained from the Director of Collegiate Education and the 3rd respondent Manager was not afforded with any opportunity of hearing. The Government have failed in examining the vacancy position by adverting to relevant records and after affording an opportunity to the management to explain the position, is the contention.

(3.) WHILE considering the rival contentions, it is evident that the observations with respect to availability of vacancies, is made without verification of the relevant records and without affording any opportunity of personal hearing to the 3rd respondent management. The benefit extended under Ext.P1 order was not made available in the case, mainly on the ground that there was no existing vacancies. Since the petitioner raises serious dispute regarding this aspect, and considering the fact that the petitioner is still continuing on contract basis, I am of the view that a reconsideration of the matter on the basis of proper evaluation regarding availability of vacancy is required.