K MANI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was engaged by the Balussery Gramodaya Khadi Sangh as a Carpenter on daily wages with effect from 01.01.1976. While continuing as such, he had been sent for training for improving his skills in the field of carpentry and this fact is evidenced by Ext.P7 certificate issued to him by the Kerala Sarvodaya Sangh. Thereafter, in 1983, the Gramodaya Khadi Sangh was taken over by the Kerala Khadi and Village Industries Board, the 2nd respondent herein. The 2nd respondent Board was constituted under the Kerala Khadi and Village Industries Act 1957, for the purposes of promoting Khadi and Village Industries in the rural sector of the State by creating job opportunities with minimum capital investment. It is not in dispute in the instant case that at the time of takeover of the Gramodaya Khadi Sangh by the 2nd respondent Board, the petitioner who was working on a daily wage basis was also absorbed as an employee of the 2nd respondent Board and he thereafter worked under the 2nd respondent on daily wage basis.

(2.) BY Ext.P1 order dated 30.10.2009, the 1st respondent herein initiated a proposal for regularisation of the daily wage workers working under the 2nd respondent Board. In the said order, the State Government called for a resolution by the 2nd respondent Board that would show the names of the employees who could be regularised, along with details showing the tenure of their service as daily wage employees under the 2nd respondent Board. Pursuant to the said Government Order, the 2nd respondent took up the matter at their Board level, as is apparent from Ext.P2 agenda note. In the details appended to the said note, the petitioner is shown as employed on daily wages as a Carpenter at the Balussery unit of the Board against a sanctioned post. The joining date of the petitioner is also shown as 01.01.1976, which is the date on which he was first engaged as a daily wage worker by the erstwhile Balussery Gramodaya Khadi Sangh that was taken over by the 2nd respondent Board. The 2nd respondent Board eventually passed Ext.P3 Board resolution recommending the case of daily wage employees, including the petitioner, for regularisation by the State Government.

(3.) IT would appear that when no action was forthcoming from the Government, the petitioner approached this Court through W.P. (C).No.19705 of 2011, which was disposed by Ext.P4 judgment directing the State Government to consider the claim of the petitioner for regularisation based on the various Government orders issued and the decisions of this Court and the Supreme Court on the subject. Pursuant to Ext.P4 judgment, the 1st respondent considered the case of the petitioner for regularisation and proceeded to reject the same by Ext.P5 order dated 09.03.2012. In Ext.P5, the specific stand of the State Government is that all the appointments in the 2nd respondent Board are made through the Kerala Public Service Commission and, insofar as the petitioner was engaged on daily wage basis and not against a sanctioned post after observing the rules of selection, the 2nd respondent Board could not make regular appointments to sanctioned posts that were already under the purview of the Kerala Public Service Commission. The said order also points out, with reference to the decision of this Court in State of Kerala v. Valsamma, 2010 2 KerLT 294that persons such as the petitioner were not entitled to claim regularisation solely on account of the fact that they had long and continuous service under the 2nd respondent Board. Ext.P5 order of the Government is impugned in the present writ petition.