Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1180 (KER)

Lalgimon K. C v. State of Kerala

2025-05-13

N.NAGARESH

body2025
JUDGMENT : N.NAGARESH, J. The petitioners, who are working as daily wage workers in the Institute of Human Resource Development (IHRD), are before this Court for the fifth time seeking to command the 2 nd respondent-IHRD to consider appointment of the petitioners against regular posts of Peon-cum-Watcher / Gardner and Sweeper-cum-Peon in the Institute against the vacancies arose from 2011 and to disburse all consequential benefits. 2. The petitioners state that they have been continuing from 2001 on daily wage basis and from 2011 on consolidated wages. They were assured appointment to regular posts in the next vacancies on the intervention of this Court. Though sufficient vacancies arose, the petitioners were not appointed on a regular basis. 3. The IHRD drew up Ext.P10 Scheme for appointment to various Last Grade posts, which also provided regularising the existing adhoc/provisional/temporary/daily wage workers. In Ext.P10 Scheme, there was a proposal to terminate the services of the petitioners. The petitioners, therefore filed W.P.(C) No.24297/2008. The writ petition was dismissed. The petitioners therefore filed WA No.1846/2010. It was thereafter that the petitioners were appointed on consolidated pay of Rs. 6000 per month. 4. The petitioners thereafter filed W.P.(C) No.8617/2014 seeking to appoint them against the vacancies available. The writ petition was disposed of directing the respondents to consider the representations filed by the petitioners. The representations were rejected by the respondents as per Ext.P14 stating that financial condition of IHRD is not conducive. Ext.P14 was challenged filing W.P.(C) No.21924/2015. In the writ petition this Court passed an interim order directing the respondent to consider the request for regularisation of the petitioners. The request was again rejected as per Ext.P15 order stating that it is not the policy of the Government to regularise daily wage / consolidated pay employees. 5. This Court disposed of W.P.(C) No.21924/2015 holding that the claim of the petitioners is not for regularisation, but for appointment to regular post as and when vacancies arise. This Court directed the respondents to reconsider the claim for appointment of the petitioners to regular vacancies, within a time frame. The IHRD thereafter passed Ext.P17 proceedings stating that the request of the petitioners for regularisation of their appointment cannot be considered now. 6. The petitioners again approached this Court filing W.P.(C) No.1817/2023. This Court directed the respondents to reconsider the claim for appointment of the petitioners to regular vacancies, within a time frame. The IHRD thereafter passed Ext.P17 proceedings stating that the request of the petitioners for regularisation of their appointment cannot be considered now. 6. The petitioners again approached this Court filing W.P.(C) No.1817/2023. The said writ petition was disposed of as per Ext.P18 judgment setting aside Ext.P17 and directing the respondent to reconsider the claim in terms of Ext.PI6 judgment. The request was again rejected as per Ext.P19 order reiterating what has been stated in Ext.P17. The petitioners have filed the writ petition aggrieved by Ext.P19. 7. The petitioners state that they were appointed on consolidated pay as per Ext.P1. The petitioners are entitled to be appointed against the vacancies arising in Last Grade. The IHRD has no case that they don’t have vacancies to accommodate the petitioners. The law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi and others [ (2006) 4 SCC 1 ] cannot be applied to the petitioners, because the petitioners are not seeking regularisation. The request of the petitioners is to consider them for regular appointment through a selection process giving weightage for their previous service. 8. Respondents 2 to 4 filed a counter affidavit. Respondents 2 to 4 stated that the petitioners’ claim for regularisation based on assurance given, is unsustainable. When proceedings were issued for their engagement, an assurance was incorporated stating that they will be considered for appointment to regular posts in accordance with the rules and regulations in force. The respondents stated that the said assurance was illegal as it went against the special rules. As per the special rules, 20% of the sanctioned posts were to be filled by internal promotion from regular part-time employees of IHRD. 9. The respondents further submitted that during the last decade, there was drastic reduction of students under IHRD institutions. Many Courses were dropped and many IHRD institutions are on the verge of closing down due to poor response from students. The financial position of the IHRD is precarious due to significant reduction in students’ intake. Therefore, the petitioners cannot be given regular appointments. The writ petition is without any merit and it is liable to be dismissed. 10. Many Courses were dropped and many IHRD institutions are on the verge of closing down due to poor response from students. The financial position of the IHRD is precarious due to significant reduction in students’ intake. Therefore, the petitioners cannot be given regular appointments. The writ petition is without any merit and it is liable to be dismissed. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel representing respondent 2 to 4. I have also heard the learned Government Pleader representing the 1 st respondent. 11. The petitioners were engaged as Watchman / Peons in the Engineering Colleges on daily wage basis in the year 2001. The petitioners were issued with orders appointing them on consolidated pay of Rs. 6000 per month on adhoc basis in the year 2011. By Ext.P16 judgment in W.P.(C) No.21924/2015 and connected cases, this Court directed the IHRD to reconsider the claims of the petitioners strictly in terms of the proceedings under which they were appointed. The IHRD, however, rejected the claim of the petitioners holding that the Government has rejected the proposal for regularisation of the petitioners, citing judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court. 12. The petitioners again approached this Court filing W.P.(C) No.1817/2023. This Court noted that this Court had not directed regularisation of the appointment of the petitioners and this Court had only directed to go by the undertaking contained in the order of appointment and consider the claim of the petitioners for appointment against regular posts as and when vacancies arise. This Court therefore directed the respondents to reconsider the claim of the petitioners, in terms of Ext.P19 judgment in W.P.(C) No.21924 of 2015. 13. The request of the petitioners stands rejected as per Ext.P19 proceedings dated 06.01.2024. In Ext.P19 order, the respondents have stated that the assurance given to the petitioners for consideration for regular appointment goes against the prevailing special rules. The petitioners are not entitled to regularisation. The IHRD had fixed the staff strength when the student strength was 40,000. The number of students has now come down to 30,000. Revision of staff pattern is pending. Therefore, the argument of the petitioners that there are 42 regular vacancies cannot be accepted. 14. Ext.P1 is the proceedings engaging the 1 st petitioner as Watchman / Peon on daily wage basis. The number of students has now come down to 30,000. Revision of staff pattern is pending. Therefore, the argument of the petitioners that there are 42 regular vacancies cannot be accepted. 14. Ext.P1 is the proceedings engaging the 1 st petitioner as Watchman / Peon on daily wage basis. In Ext.P1, it has been made clear that the petitioners will have no claim for regular appointment under the IHRD under any circumstances. Subsequently, Ext.P10 Rules were framed for Recruitment of Last Grade servants and Part-time staff under the IHRD. Ext.P10 stated that the adhoc Last Grade servants and Part-time servants who have served for a minimum period of one year will be allowed a grace mark in the interview for each completed spell of two years. Therefore, it is evident that the petitioners have a right to be considered for appointment in regular posts. 15. The right of the petitioners for consideration for regular appointment is upheld by this Court in Ext.P16 judgment in W.P.(C) No.21924/2015 and in Ext.P18 judgment in W.P.(C) No.1817/2023. But, even when such a right exists, the petitioners can aspire for consideration only when regular appointment to vacant posts are resorted to. 16. Respondents 2 to 4 have stated that during the last 10 years, student strength has reduced considerably in their institutions. In the year 2014, the Government as per Ext.R2(e) Government Order dated 14.02.2014 has ordered that there should be a revision of staff strength every year in tune with the strength of the students. 17. There were 88 Institutions under the IHRD and 130 sanctioned regular posts of LGS and 9 posts of Sweeper-cum Peon. The Staff Strength was fixed when there were more than 40,000 students under the IHRD. Now, the student strength is less than 30,000. The posts presently held by the regular staff is retained owing to the non-fixation of staff strength. 18. There was drastic reduction of student strength affecting the financial viability of IHRD. Payment of salary to staff is in arrears. Some educational institutions were closed down due to want of students and the teaching and non-teaching staff were rendered surplus. 19. In the circumstances, the petitioners cannot insist that they should be appointed to regular posts based on the cadre strength fixed in the year 2014. It is for the employer to decide whether any posts are to be filled up or not. 19. In the circumstances, the petitioners cannot insist that they should be appointed to regular posts based on the cadre strength fixed in the year 2014. It is for the employer to decide whether any posts are to be filled up or not. The right of the petitioner based on Exts.P10, P16 and P18 would arise only when respondents 2 to 4 refix the staff strength or when they initiate process for recruitment for regular appointment to the posts of Last Grade service. The writ petition is therefore dismissed.