VINOD Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful petitioners in O.P. No. 23179 of 1997 are the appellants in this Writ Appeal. This appeal is directed against the judgment of C.S. Rajan J. dated 15th January, 1998 dismissing the petition on the following grounds:

(2.) In support of their contentions, the appellants have cited a recent judgment by a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Om Prakash J, (as he then was) and Koshy J. in Writ Appeal No. 2201 of 1997 dated 5th December, 1997 wherein the Bench held that in cases like the instant, the better course would have been to permit the appellants to continue until regularly selected candidates become available from Public Service Commission. The judgment reads thus :

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondents contended that persons like the appellants who were appointed under R.9(a)(i) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules can continue only upto 180 days and that they have no right to continue in service till replaced by Public Service Commission recruited hands. Learned Government Pleader further submitted that provisional appointments of the appellants being thus regulated by the statutory provisions, they cannot claim any right higher than the one which the statute has prescribed, nor can they claim any right inconsistent with the statutory provisions. When appointments are made under a statutory provision for a definite statutory period, it is not possible to spell out any right to the effect that contrary to the said statute the appointees are entitled to continue in service. In support of her contentions the learned Government Pleader relied on the following decisions: (1) Narayani v. State of Kerala ( 1984 KLT 17 (SC)), (2) S. Parimalom v. State of Kerala ( 1985 KLT 624 ), (3) Rajam v. v. Kerala State Electricity Board ( 1992 (1) KLT 566 ), (4) Reji Joseph v. Kerala State Electricity Board ( 1993 (1) KLT 393 ) (5) Sadanandan v. Circle Inspector ( ILR 1994 (1) Ker. 701 ), (6) Sini P. Kuriakose v. State of Kerala ( 1987 (2) KLT 425 ), (7) Dr. Santhosh Babu v. State of Kerala (1990 (1) KLT SN P. 68), (8) A. Lakshmikutty v. State of Kerala ( 1991 (1) KLJ 698 ) and (9) C. Latha v. State ( 1993 (2) KLJ 497 ). An unreported decision of Sreedharan, J. (as he then was) and Koshy, J. in Writ Appeal No. 80 of 1989 dated 6th February 1996 was also relied on by the learned Government Pleader, wherein the Division Bench had considered the legal position under R.9(a)(i) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules and held that a temporary employee under R.9(a)(i) of the general rules has no right to the post and he cannot claim regularisation in service. That legal position has been consistently taken by this Court as can be seen from the decisions reported in Dr. Santhosh Baby v. State of Kerala ( ILR 1990 (2) Ker. 484 ), Rajan v.Kerala State Electricity Board ( 1992 (1) KLT 98 ), Reji Joseph v. Kerala State Electricity Board (1993 (1) KLT 393), C. Latha v. State ( 1993 (2) KLJ 497 ) and an unreported decision in Writ Appeal Nos. 1056/92 and 55/95 as well as the numerous decisions cited by the learned Government Pleader. Counsel who appeared on either side before the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 2201 of 1997 have, unfortunately, not cited any of the above decisions or brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Judges the consistent legal position taken by this Court in interpreting the very same rule.