PADMAKSHAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners are persons who were evicted from their lands pursuant to a land acquisition proceeding that was initiated for the benefit of the 3rd respondent.

(2.) Based on the representation preferred by persons like the petitioners, who were evicted from their lands for the purposes of acquisition, the Government by Ext. P1 Order provided for preference to such persons in connection with recruitment to certain specified posts under the 3rd respondent, provided the said persons registered their names with the Employment Exchange. On an earlier occasion, when the petitioners had sought a clarification with regard to their rights under Ext. P1 Government Order, this Court by Ext. P2 judgment had held that, in terms of Ext. P1 Government Order, the petitioners can claim preference in appointment only when the 3rd respondent resorts to recruitment from outside. It was clarified that if the 3rd respondent resorted only to a category change among employees, or a deployment of existing employees for accommodating excess staff, it would not in any manner prejudice the rights of the petitioners under Ext. P1 Government Order.

(3.) It is the petitioners' case that even after Ext. P2 judgment, no recruitments have been notified by the 3rd respondent for the posts mentioned in Ext. P1 Government Order. While so, the petitioners' came to understand, through Ext. P5 recruitment rules in respect of administrative staff under the 2nd respondent, that the post of 'General Worker' was excluded from the posts notified as forming part of the categories of administrative staff under the 2nd respondent. Insofar as the 3rd respondent is a division under the 2nd respondent, it followed that even under the 3rd respondent, the post of 'General Worker' would not be available for recruitment for future periods. By a note under Rule 3 of Ext. P5 recruitment rules, it was made clear that such of those categories in the administrative staff, as were not specifically included in the rules, but were existing in the various centres, would continue until the superannuation of the incumbents. It followed therefore, that as far as the posts of 'General Worker' under the 3rd respondent is concerned, by virtue of Ext. P5 Rules, as made applicable to the 3rd respondent, there would be no recruitment to the post of 'General Worker' subsequent to the coming into force of Ext. P5 rules and further, those persons who were occupying the post of 'General Worker' under the 3rd respondent, would be retained as such under the 3rd respondent till their superannuation. The petitioners, however, came to understand that there was a proposal by the 3rd respondent to re-designate some of the 'General Workers' as 'Helpers'. The petitioners therefore approached this Court challenging the said move of the 3rd respondent on the ground that, if the 3rd respondent was permitted to resort to the re-designation of 'General Workers' as 'Helpers', it would adversely affect the rights of the petitioners' under Ext. P1 notification, in that there would be no vacancy in the post of 'Helper' under the 3rd respondent Organisation for filling through direct recruitment. The Writ Petition has been filed impugning Ext. P6 communication of the 2nd respondent to the 3rd respondent informing it of the fact that the 2nd respondent had approved the recommended of the managing committee of the 3rd respondent to consider 'General Workers' for re-designating as 'Helpers' in the existing vacancies in the 3rd respondent, without any change in their pay scales as well as in the current duties and responsibilities. There is also a prayer for direction to respondents 2 and 3 to appoint the petitioners as 'Helpers' pursuant to Ext. P1 Government Order.