SOBHANA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS challenge the appointment given to respondents 3 to 11 in the service under the 2nd respondent, Kerala Tourism Development Corporation.

(2.) THE material averments made by the petitioners are as follows: Petitioners are unemployed graduates. They are fully qualified to be appointed as Tourist Guides, Information Assistants or other similar posts under the Corporation. Second respondent is a Corporation fully owned, controlled and administered by the Government of Kerala. In 1967 the 2nd respondent has framed and published rules called Kerala Tourism Development Corporation Service Rules, hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' to define and regulate the recruitment and conditions of service of its employees. As per Rule 8, recruitment to the service shall be made by direct appointment, promotion or deputation from other services. Direct appointments are to be made from out of the names sent on request of the Corporation by the Employment Exchange or S. S. and A. Board or from among others on the basis of applications received in pursuance of advertisement in newspapers. In 1970 the State Legislature passed the Kerala Public Service Commission (Additional Functions as respects certain Corporations and Companies) Act, 1970. Thereafter direct appointments to the service in the Corporation have to be made on the advice of the Public Service Commission. As per Rule 2-A of the Kerala Public Service Commission (Consulatation by Corporations and Companies) Rules, 1971, no appointment to posts brought under the purview of the Commission shall be made except on the advice of the Commission. The Corporation could make only temporary appointments and that too for a total period not exceeding three months. Some time in 1981 the 2nd respondent appointed respondents 3 to 8 on daily wages as casual employees. They were subsequently designated as Information Assistants. These appointments were made secretly. Those posts were never advertised in newspapers, nor was it notified to the Employment Exchange. The Public Service Commission was also not requested to select candidates for the posts. Respondents 3 to 8 are not graduates. Nor are they qualified in guide training. They were appointed on extraneous considerations. On 1st April, 1982 the Board of Directors of the 2nd respondent decided to absorb respondents 3 to 8 in permanent service in violation of the Rules. Respondents 9 to 11 are now appointed as Information Assistants on daily wages. Those posts were not notified to the Employment Exchange or advertised in newspapers. Second respondent is taking steps to regularise their services and absorb them as regular employees. The petitioners, therefore, pray for the issue of writ of quo-warranto or any appropriate writ or direction declaring that the appointment of respondents 3 to 11 to the service of the 2nd respondent is illegal and void, to oust them and to direct the 2nd respondent to fill up the posts in accordance with the Rules framed for the said purpose.

(3.) ON behalf of the State, a Section Officer in General Administration (Political-B) Department has sworn to an affidavit. In the affidavit it is admitted that the petitioners had complained before the Government in April 1982, against the appointment of six lady candidates as Information Assistants, that the Managing Director in his report dated 16th July, 1983 stated that the Board was competent to make appointments to the post of Information Assistants as those posts were outside the purview of the Kerala Public Service Commission, that they were appointed initially on daily wages and were subsequently regularised, that smartness, intelligence and ability to converse with the public were considered more important than prescribing any fixed qualification to the post and that if their services are to be dispensed with it would create serious administrative problems in the Company. It is further averred that the appointments in question were made without the knowledge of the Government and that in view of the lapse of time the Government have decided not to interfere with the appointments made by the 2nd respondent.