SINI P KURIAKOSE Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant, who was sponsored by the Employment exchange, was appointed provisionally as a Head Draughtsman "for 179 days from the date of joining duty or till a regular hand joins duty whichever is earlier", by order of the Executive Engineer (Agril.), Regional Office, calicut, dated 24-11-1986 (Ext. P1 ). When her services were about to be terminated on the basis of the appointment order itself and on the strength of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, especially R. 9 (a) (i) of the rules, she approached this court for a direction that her services may not be terminated and that she may allowed to continue in service. This court has in a series of decisions held that the appellant and persons similarity situated are not entitled to the protection of the Industrial Disputes Act in view of the specific amendment to the Kerala Public Services Act, made with effect from 1st october. 1981, stating "notwithstanding anything contained in Chap. S-A or in any other provision of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947) or in any other law for the time being in force, or in any judgment, decree or order of any court, the appointment of any person to any public service or post in connection with the affairs of the State of Kerala and the conditions of service (including termination of service) of any person appointed to any such service or post shall be governed by the provisions of this Act and the rules made or deemed to have been made thereunder. "

(2.) WHEN the case of provisional hands came up before the supreme Court in the decision reported in 1984 KLT 17 between Narayani v. State of Kerala , the Supreme Court observed: On one hand are the difficulties in which the petitioners find themselves as a result of the impending termination of their services: On the other are the exigencies of service which require that persons who have been selected by the Public Service Commission on merits must take change of their posts. In order not to aggravate this problem, it is necessary that the examination should be held by the Public Service Commission expeditiously. " The Supreme Court therefore directed that the petitioners therein and persons similarly situated will be permitted to appear for the next examination which the Public Service Commission may hold. It was also specifically observed that: "we would like to make it clear that the order which we are passing to-day will not confer any right on the petitioners and the others who are similarly situated to continue in service, or of being selected by the Public Service Commission otherwise than in accordance with the relevant rules and regulations. We must also clarify that the order will not be construed as or operate as a stay of the appointment of candidates who have already been selected or who may hereafter be selected by the Public Service commission."

(3.) WE are not aware whether these decisions have been placed before the Supreme Court when the Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 410,1574,1790/86 and 874/87 (1987 (2) KLT 347) were deposed of by the Supreme court by its order dated 6th August, 1987, a copy of which has been produced by the appellant along with the writ appeal as Ext. P5. In this order also, the supreme Court has stated that the "appropriate order to be passed in this case should be in the same terms as in P. K. Narayani v. State of Kerala and others (AIR 1984 SC 534:1984 KLT. 17 ). 11