KANAKAVENI, K. Vs. KASARGOD MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioners seeking to declare that the petitioners are entitled to regularise in service from the date shown in paragraph 6 of the writ petition and to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to regularise them in service. The petitioners are the Sanitation Workers of Kasaragod Municipality, appointed by Ext. P-1 order dated 14-1-1991 on daily wages, on condition that when regular vacancies arise, they will be appointed in the Public Health Contingent Establishment Wing of Kasaragod Municipality. But after several years of their appointment, they were not regularised in the above post. On the other hand, Municipal Council has issued Ext. P-2 order dated 26-9-2000 and appointed the petitioners provisionally in that post in the scale of Rs. 975-1525, on condition that appointment is subjected to review and the retrenchment by the Secretary without further notice. In the circumstances, the petitioners approached this Court with this petition to regularise their service from the date on which vacancies arose.

(2.) Heard both sides. There was no counter-affidavit from the side of respondents 1 to 3 with regard to the above contention. But the learned Government Pleader Sri T.R. Rajesh, representing for respondents 2 and 3 raised all contentions denying the arguments advanced by the petitioners.

(3.) In this context, I may observe that in public appointment, merit, fairness and transparency are the basic concept, which will be followed by the reservation policy ensured in the constitution. If this constitutional right is put in causality it will create improper method of public appointment Therefore, I may refer the facts of the case where it is clearly pleaded about the nature of appointment made in this case. Petitioners pleaded and proved intentional omission and violation of the service rules from the side of respondents. It is the settled principles of law of pleading that an averment made by the petitioners is expected to be specifically denied by the replying party. If there is no specific denial, then such averment is deemed to have been admitted by the respondents. In the present petition, it is evident that pleadings are specific and material, in the absence of any denial I am of the view that petitioners made out a prima facie case for interference. Here, it will be useful to refer the decision of the Apex Court in which explained the principle in giving ad hoc or temporary appointments.