V. JAROD Vs. ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as a part time sweeper in the State Seed Farm, Kongad, Palghat District as per proceedings of the Joint Director of Agriculture (PAC) Palghat dated 2-3-1985 on a temporary basis. The petitioner's service as part time sweeper was later regularised. While continuing as such, as per Ext. P2 order dated 18-10-1985 the petitioner was appointed as Fitter in the office of the Assistant Executive Engineer (Agrl.) Malampuzha on a provisional basis. On the basis of the above appointment order, he jointed duty as Fitter in the office of the first respondent on 24-10-1985. The qualifications prescribed for appointment as Fitter are those contained in Ext. P1 Circular dated 15-2-1985. There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner satisfies all the qualifications prescribed as per Ext. P1 Circular. As per Ext. P3 order dated 31-12-1986, probation of the petitioner was declared and his animal increment was sanctioned with effect from 25-10-1986. He was also admitted to General Provident Fund with effect from July, 1986 and the G. P. P. Account Number allotted to him is AGRI. 15113. While so, as per Ext. P4 order date 2-11-1988, the second respondent reverted the petitioner and posted him as part time contingent employee. The reason stated in Ext. P4 for reverting the petitioner is that the appointment of part time contingent sweeper as Fitter is irregular. In support of the conclusion so reached, it is stated in Ext. P 4 that as per the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules part time contingent employees cannot be treated as parsons coming under any of the subordinate services and that only a person employed in any of she subordinate services can be appointed to the post of Fitter by transfer. The petitioner has challenged the validity of Ext. P4 order contending that as per the method of appointment indicated in Ext. P1, he was fully qualified to be appointed as Fitter by transfer as he was at the relevant time a member of the part time contingent service governed by the Special Rules framed in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-s.(i) of S.2 of the Kerala Public Services Act, 1968 (19 of 1968) - Notification No. S.R.O No. 152/75/PD.

(2.) On behalf of the third respondent, a counter affidavit has been filed opposing the prayers in the O.P. and reiterating the grounds mentioned in Ext. P4 in justification of the reversion ordered. Further, with reference to the contention that no notice was issued to the petitioner before passing Ext. P4 order and no copy of Ext. P4 order was served on the petitioner, it was stated that there is no necessity of serving either a notice or a copy of the order on the petitioner as the order of reversion is one passed in rectification of a mistake committed at the time when the order of appointment was made. However, it was admitted in the counter affidavit that the petitioner is even now continuing in service on the strength of the stay order passed by this Court in this O. P.

(3.) The method of appointment prescribed in Ext. P1 is a follows: "Method of appointment :