THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REGION Vs. JOY Y. S/O YOHANNAN,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant - Thiruvananthapuram Regional Co -operative Milk Producers Union was the third respondent in W.P. (C) No. 32395 of 2004 and it is a Co -operative Society engaged in the production, distribution and sale of milk and milk products. The first respondent, on being nominated by the Employment Exchange, was subjected to a process of selection and was appointed as Technician Grade II (Boiler) in to its service on temporary basis, on 23.11.1995. He was initially engaged for a period of three months and the said engagement, based on orders issued from time to time, continued uninterruptedly with artificial breaks. While he was continuing as such, the question of his regularization was taken up for consideration along with Messers R.T. Sanil and S. Raju who were also appointees on temporary basis. Though their services were regularised, the first respondent was discriminated arbitrarily and in an hostile manner. Feeling aggrieved by the said action, he approached the third respondent herein. The third respondent considered all the attending circumstances. The fact that the first respondent had been continuing in service from 23.11.1995 and that he possessed the requisite qualification for appointment to the post of Technician Grade II (Boiler) were taken into consideration. The requirement of a permanent hand in the said post and that persons similarly situated were regularized in the service of the appellant, were also taken into consideration. The third respondent, thereupon, issued Ext. P3 order allowing the request of the first respondent. The appellant took up the matter in appeal before the second respondent and consequently Ext. P4 order was passed by the Government setting aside Ext. P3 order of the third respondent. Challenging the said order, the first respondent had approached this Court by filing O.P. No. 26503 of 1999.

(2.) IN O.P. No. 26503 of 1999, Ext. P4 order was sought to be sustained mainly on two grounds. Firstly, it was contended that the two persons whose names were mentioned above were appointed, though on a permanent basis, after public advertisement and an interview whereas in the case of the first respondent, there was no such advertisement. Secondly, it was contended that the said two persons had longer period of temporary service than the first respondent herein. However, the fact that the first respondent was nominated by the Employment Exchange and that he was subjected to a selection process prior to his appointment on temporary basis were not disputed. This Court after considering the rival contentions, set aside Ext. P4 order as per Ext. P5 judgment holding that basically there was no difference in status between the first respondent herein and those temporary appointees who were made permanent. It was categorically found that there was no reason to discriminate the first respondent. It was after entering into such specific findings that as per Ext. P5, this Court directed the first respondent to consider the appeal preferred by the appellant herein afresh and to pass orders thereon. In purported compliance of the directions in Ext. P5 judgment, the Government issued Ext. P6 order rejecting the claim of the petitioner for absorption and allowing the appeal filed by the appellant herein. A bare perusal of Ext. P6 order would reveal that in order to reject the claim of the first respondent and to allow the appeal preferred by the appellant, the Government had relied on the reasonings which were considered and rejected by this Court in Ext. P5 judgment. The fact that Messers R.T. Sanil and S. Raju were working for longer periods than the petitioner/first respondent and that they were appointed on temporary basis after public advertisement and interview were again assigned as the reasons for rejecting the claim of the petitioner. As noticed earlier, those were the reasons unsuccessfully raised before this Court in O.P. No. 26503 of 1999, as is obvious from Ext. P5. The fact that the petitioner was nominated through the Employment Exchange and that he was subjected to a process of selection prior to his appointment on temporary basis were not given due consideration while passing Ext. P6 order.

(3.) AS observed by the learned Single Judge, Ext. P5 is an inter parte judgment. On the face of such a finding in Ext. P5, this Court cannot now legally advert to any other contentions now raised by the appellant. We, therefore, find no reason to deviate from the prima facie view expressed by us in the interim order dated 17.8.2009. The judgment of the learned Single Judge under appeal is nothing but a logical conclusion based on the finding in Ext. P5 which has become final. The appellant is not justified in the challenge against the findings in Ext. P5 judgment either in the Writ Petition or in the Writ Appeal. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the judgment of the learned Single Judge does not call for any appellate interference.