ANEESH.S.K Vs. THE SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners were appointed on contract basis in the Kerala State Youth Commission (herein after called the Commission), which is constituted as per the Kerala State Youth Commission Act, 2014. After constitution of the Commission, posts were created as per Ext P2 Government Order. As per Ext P3 Notification, the posts of Assistant, Personal Assistant, Peon and Driver were sought to be filled up by effecting contract appointment. Accordingly, Ext P3 notice was issued by the Commission inviting applications for filling up the above mentioned posts, on contract basis. The petitioners responded to Ext P3 Notification and were appointed to the notified posts as evidenced by Exts P4 series.

(2.) The petitioners contend that though they were initially appointed for a period of one year on contract basis, the period of service was successively extended twice, by a period of one year each. Exts P5 to P9 are the last of the agreements under which the contract of service entered into between the Commission and the petitioners was extended. On the strength of Ext P11, the petitioners contend that the Commission had resolved to further extend the period of their service. Ext P12 is the recommendation submitted before the Government, pursuant to the decision taken by the Commission. It is contended that in spite of the decision of the Commission and the consequential recommendation, the first respondent, vide Ext P13, illegally terminated the service of petitioners 4 and 5, contrary to the provisions of the Kerala State Youth Commission Act , 2014. The Writ Petition is filed seeking to quash Ext P13 and for a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 to 3 to regularise the service of the petitioners.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed by the first respondent wherein it is contended that as per G.O.(P) No.28/16/Fin. dated 26.2.2016 it was explicitly ordered that prior sanction shall be obtained for renewal of contract of employees appointed on contract basis/daily wages. It was in that context that Ext P12 was submitted before the Government seeking permission for renewal of contract with the petitioners. By exercising its prerogative, the Government had deemed it appropriate that the contract of service of the petitioners need not be renewed. It was in such circumstances, that Ext P13 order was issued by the first respondent. It is pointed out that as evident from Clause 3 of the agreements executed by the petitioners, the service of the petitioners can be terminated on expiry of the contract period, without any notice.