SREEKALA A R Vs. SUPERINTENDENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The point that arises for decision in this case is whether an Employment Exchange hand appointed for 179 days to the post of Cook, which is a post borne on the Kerala Last Grade Service, can claim that her appointment should be treated as regular, on the ground that one of the methods of appointment specified in the Special Rules for the said post is recruitment through Employment Exchange.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are the following. The appellant was a candidate waiting in the queue for employment, after having registered herself with the District Employment Exchange, Kottayam. She submits, after waiting for 25 years, she was sponsored by the Employment Exchange along with a few others for appointment to the post of Cook in the Old Age Home, Ithithanam, Kottayam. The candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange were interviewed and the appellant was selected and appointed by the 1st respondent, who is the Superintendent of the Old Age Home, by Ext.P1 order dated 3.6.2005, on provisional basis for a period of 179 days, in the post of Cook. Her appointment was approved by the 2nd respondent, who is the Head of the Department, by Ext.P2 communication dated 25.8.2005. Apprehending that she may be terminated on completion of 179 days, the writ petition was filed on 29.11.2005, seeking a declaration that her appointment to the post of Cook as per Ext.P1 is a regular appointment. She also prayed for quashing Ext.P1 to the extent it states that her appointment is provisional and is for a period of 179 days. Consequential reliefs were also sought.

(3.) The appellant to support her case, mainly, relied on Ext.P3 judgment of the Division bench of this Court. It was a common judgment, disposing of a few Writ Appeals and Writ Petitions, filed by Hospital Attendants Grade II, appointed through Employment Exchange. They claimed that they should be treated as candidates regularly appointed, though their appointment orders stated that their appointments were provisional and only for 179 days. Their claim was upheld by this Court. The appellant also relied on Ext.P4 judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court rendered in the case of a part-time Sweeper, wherein it was held that though the appointment of the petitioner therein was for a period of 179 days, still she should be treated as a person regularly appointed. In the light of the above two decisions, the appellant sought the reliefs.