JAYAMOL KRISHNAN Vs. KALAMASSERY MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri. Abraham Vakkanal, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner, a diploma holder in Civil Engineering was appointed along with respondents 2 and 3 for a period of 179 days, as 1st Grade Overseer in the Kalamassery Municipality. They were candidates sponsored by the District Employment Officer, Ernakulam. Ext. P6 is the order of appointment whereby the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 were appointed for a period of 179 days from the date on which they join duty. Ext. P6 order of appointment was issued on 10/09/2008 and all the appointees joined duty on the same day. According to the petitioner, the second respondent joined duty at 10.30 a.m., the third respondent at 10.35 a.m. and the petitioner at 10.45 a.m. on 10/09/2008. After the petitioner joined duty, the Secretary of the Kalamassery Municipality issued Ext. P7 order dated 29/10/2008 terminating the service of the petitioner on the ground that when appointments were made, the turn of an Ezhava candidate was overlooked and the petitioner, who secured the lowest marks in the selection process and was ranked third in the select list has to be relieved, in order to enable the appointment of an Ezhava candidate. Ext. P7 is under challenge in this writ petition.

(3.) Sri. Abraham Vakkanal, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner contends that as the petitioner joined duty after respondents 2 and 3 joined duty, she is junior to respondents 2 and 3 and therefore if the service of someone among the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 has to be terminated, the service of the senior most among them, viz. the second respondent should be terminated. The learned Senior Advocate relies on the proviso to R.9(a)(iii) of Part II of the KS & SSR and the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Suresh Kumar v. Director of Health Services, 1999 KHC 82 : 1999 (1) KLT 223 in support of the said contention.