SURESH KUMAR Vs. DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was appointed as Junior Health Inspector, Grade -II under the respondents under R.9(a)(i) of the Kerala State & Subordinate Service Rules, as per Ext. P1 order dated 10-11-1997. The said appointment was by direct recruitment. An appointee by direct recruitment under this rule can be continued in service only for a maximum period of 180 days. He cannot continue beyond that period. As per the proviso to R.9(a)(i) a person who had already been appointed for a term on temporary basis cannot again be appointed under the same authority unless there is qualified bands in the registers of the Employment Exchange. This being the position, the petitioner cannot expect to continue beyond the term of appointment mentioned in Ext. P1, So, the petitioner cannot seek a direction to the respondents not to terminate his service in violation of the provisions in R.9(a)(iii) of the K.S. & S.S.R.

(2.) It is submitted by the petitioner that persons appointed on temporary basis earlier than him and senior to him are still continuing in service. Petitioner submits that in terms of the proviso to R.9(a)(iii) of the Rules, senior shall be first sent out. According to the petitioner, there are persons continuing in service from 1996 onwards and termination of his service retaining such persons having more lengthy service is violative of the principles and that proviso. But the seniority or juniority are always be determined within the terms of appointment made mention of under R.9(a)(i) of the Rules. In this case, being a member of the para medical staff, petitioner got the maximum period of one year by his appointment under R.9(a)(i). He cannot insist that his service must last more than one year. The seniority made mention of in the proviso to R.9(a)(iii) shall always be within the ultimate limit of appointment in terms of R.9(a)(i) itself. If a temporary appointee appointed under R.9(a)(i) has to be terminated before the expiry of the term of appointment, necessarily, senior among the said appointees shall be sent out. This is the effect of the proviso to R.9(a)(iii). That meaning should be understood, taking into account the time limit of appointment as contained in R.9(a)(i) and persons appointed under the rule cannot have any right as per R.9(a)(iii) to continue in the appointment, beyond the period of 180 days (one year in the case of teaching staff and paramedical staff). Therefore, there is no question of continuance of a person in service beyond the said period. If anybody is continuing beyond that period, that is illegal continuance or continuance on the strength of a stay obtained from this Court.

(3.) It is submitted by the petitioner that in the case of some persons appointed on an earlier date, an interim order has been passed by this court as in seen from Ext. P2, what is directed in Ext. P2 is that the services of the petitioners in that case would be terminated only strictly following R.9(a)(iii) of the K.S. & S.S.R. It is also made clear therein that such order will not stand in the way of termination of the services of the petitioners therein in order to accommodate the candidates advised by the Public Service Commission. So what this Court directed is only implementation of R.9(a)(iii). There was no question of continuing the petitioners in service beyond the period of appointment even in terms of Ext. P2. As per several decisions of this Court on this point, including the Division Bench decision of this Court in Vinod v. State of Kerala ( 1998 (1) KLT 607 ) a temporary appointee do not have any right to continue beyond the term of appointment.