AMMINI AMMA Vs. KERALA WATER AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant came up before this Court in a writ petition challenging the order of termination of her service, and claimed reinstatement and regularisation of her service. During the pendency of that Original Petition, representation pending with the first respondent was also disallowed. Therefore, she challenged the same by filing another writ petition and prayed for disposal of the representation in the light of the Supreme Court judgment, reported in Jacob v. Kerala Water Authority 1990 (2) KLT 673 . Both the writ petitions were heard together and disposed of by a common judgment by the learned Single Judge on 29th July 1994. Direction was given to the first respondent to consider both the representations Exhibits P6 and P7 produced along with O. P. 6744/1994, which are marked in this case as Exhibits P9 and P10 in the light of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court. In compliance with the said direction, the representations were disposed of by Exhibit P11, rejecting her claim. Challenging the said order of the first respondent, the appellant moved O. P. 1279/1995. The learned Single Judge by judgment dated 26th June 1995 dismissed the said Original Petition. Writ petitioner challenges the above decision in this appeal.

(2.) The appellant was appointed as Draftsman, Grade II, having secured graduation with first class in Civil Engineering. She was appointed provisionally with effect from 7th May 1986. She continued in her service regularly when she entered the maternity leave with effect from 10th December 1989. She claimed her maternity leave as per R.100 of Part I of the Kerala Service Rules. But then, during her maternity leave, her service was terminated by the Discharge Certificate, Exhibit P2. A copy of the order Exhibit P3 demonstrates that the Public Service Commission advised candidates, and as per the order dated 17th January 1990 someone else was posted in place of the appellant. By order dated 25th January 1990, as per Exhibit P4, the third respondent relieved her from the duties with effect from 25th January 1990. Thereafter representations after representations were rejected and the appellant was not granted relief. The appellant was, therefore, compelled to move this Court in the writ petition and ultimately she has now preferred this appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge.

(3.) At the very outset the question which arises for consideration is whether in view of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Jacob's case 1990 (2) KLT 673 (supra) the appellant could be refused reinstatement and regularisation. In somewhat peculiar circumstances, the Supreme Court had to deal with the question on the stand taken by the Kerala Water Authority. The petitioners in a batch of matters in those cases were serving in different capacities, such as, cleaners, pump operators, draftsmen, drivers, etc. They claimed that they were appointed through the Employment Exchange between 1981 and 1988. They contended that they were compelled to approach the Supreme Court since their services were likely to be terminated as was done in the case of a few of their colleagues. They contended that till the issuance of the notification dated July 30, 1988 amending the concerned Public Service Commission Rule (as amended), there was no question of the Authority consulting the Commission and, therefore, appointments made prior to that date could not be terminated as irregular or unauthorised and could not be determined on that ground. They further contended that, as in a few cases the High Court of Kerala had failed to appreciate this true legal position and refused to grant relief to employees whose services were threatened, the Managing Director of the Authority issued instructions to his subordinates to terminate the services of similarly placed employees, thereby compelling those petitioners to approach the Supreme Court, so that all such employees could be uniformly governed by the order of the Supreme Court.