JAYAFAR C.K. & Ors. v. NONE
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 28 Jan 2008
- Bench
- V GIRI
Key paragraphs
- Para 33.A separate counter affidavit has been filed by the State Council in W.P (C ) No.26600 of 2006 as also in W.P. (C)No.4308 of 2007. It is contended that several among the petitioners are not qualified for the post. They have been appointed on a…
Judgment
V.GIRI,J.-------------------------W.P ( C) Nos, 26600, 27317, 27201, 27487 of 2006 &6415, 6419,4308 of 2007--------------------------Dated this the 28th January, 2008J U D G M E N TCommon issues arise for consideration in these writ petitions and therefore they are being disposed of by a common judgment. Writ Petition No.6415 of 2007 is taken as the leading case for convenience.
Petitioners in these writ petitions were appointed on acontract/daily wage basis in different capacities in the KeralaState Open School, which is stated to be a wing of the StateCouncil of Educational Research and Training and Centre. Theyhave been serving in different capacities either on a contract basis or on a daily wage basis for various periods. Exhibit P3notification came to be issued by the 2nd respondent inviting applications for 70 temporary vacancies, in different posts. Some of the petitioners earlier approached this Courtchallenging the notification, inter alia, on the ground that Special Rules have not been framed for effecting appointments W.P ( C) Nos. 26600, 27317, 27201, 27487 of 2006 & 6415, 6419,4308 of 20072to these posts. What is proposed to be now done is again appointment on a provisional basis and not regular appointment. Consequently, there is no reason why persons like the petitioner who were appointed on a provisional basis should not be permitted to continue until regular hands are appointed, it is contended. Reference is made in W.P. (C ) No.4308 of 2007 to Exhibit P1 order passed in W.P. (C) No.26600 of 2006, which is also one of the petitions being disposed of by this judgment.
In a counter affidavit filed by the Government inW.P (C) No.26600 of 2006, it is mentioned that the Kerala StateOpen School is under the Administrative control of the Directorof State Council of Educational Research and Training and is functioning as a separate wing of SCERT. Appointments of staff to the post of teaching faculties, to the administrative branch in the State Council is on a deputation basis from the existing staff of the General Education Department. But in the case of the Kerala State Open School all the staff members were engaged ona daily wages/contract basis except in the case of the State Co-ordinator. Special Rules for the State Council or the Open Schoolare yet to be approved by the Government. The staff pattern as W.P ( C) Nos. 26600, 27317, 27201, 27487 of 2006 & 6415, 6419,4308 of 20073such is approved by the governing body of the State Councilalso. Petitioners are working on a daily wage basis. They haveno right to continue in service and they have no right to preventa fresh selection being conducted by the respondents. Petitioners are entitled to participate in the same selection, notified under Exhibit P2 in W.P. (C ) No.4308 of 2007.
A separate counter affidavit has been filed by the State Council in W.P (C ) No.26600 of 2006 as also in W.P. (C)No.4308 of 2007. It is contended that several among the petitioners are not qualified for the post. They have been appointed on a daily wage basis or on a contract basis. Regularappointments in the Open School can be effected only when approval is obtained in that regard from the Government. Government will have to approve the staff pattern. It is therefore that the present selection procedure has been notified. A selection board has been constituted to conduct the interview for the various posts. In paragraph 8 of the counteraffidavit, it is stated as follows. “A Selection Board has been constituted to conduct the interview for the various posts in the SCERT vide Office W.P ( C) Nos. 26600, 27317, 27201, 27487 of 2006 & 6415, 6419,4308 of 20074Order No.A1/3038/2006/SCERT dated 30.6.2007 with Processor M.A.Khader, Director, SCERT as covnenor and with Chairman for each Board.
A meeting of the Chairmanand members of various Boards was convened by the Convenor, Director, SCERT on 3.7.2007 and a guideline was prepared in the meetings. The norms for awarding the scores and areas of interview questions were also discussed and finalised in the meeting. Guidelines for conducting interview:a)Members from the approved panels may only be included in the interview Board.b)5 Boards may be constituted from the panel to conduct the interview.c)There should be minimum 2 and maximum 3members in each Board including the Chairmand)The finalisation of scores may be completed in the interview day itself and the Board Chairman may keep the signed mark sheets under safe custodye)The average of the interview scores shall besigned by the Chairman and members. W.P ( C) Nos. 26600, 27317, 27201, 27487 of 2006 & 6415, 6419,4308 of 200754.I heard the Learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader, the learned standing counsel for the State Council as also the learned standing counsel for the Open School.
5. Admittedly, all the petitioners have been appointed either on a daily wage basis or on a contract basis. They were not engaged/appointed pursuant to any notified selection procedure. Orders of appointments have also not been placed on record. Petitioners cannot claim any enforceable right to be permitted to continue in service till regular appointments are effected or claim regularization of their services. They cannot seek to interdict the selection now undertaken by the respondents to the various posts even if it is for appointment ona daily wages or on a contract basis. I also take note of the stand taken by the State Council in formulating Guidelines in conducting selection to the various posts even if such selection is for appointment on a provisional basis. Petitioners cannot complain any disability in participating in such selection, provided they are qualified for such posts. W.P ( C) Nos.
26600, 27317, 27201, 27487 of 2006 & 6415, 6419,4308 of 200766.In the circumstances, I do not find any reason toissue any directions to the respondents regarding the alleged illegality or irregularity in the selection undertaken by the respondents as notified under Exhibit P2. Petitioners have no enforceable right as against the respondents on the strength of their engagement/appointment on a daily wage basis. The law laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka Vs.Ms.Umadevi [2006 (4) SCC 1] also stands in the way of the petitioners. For all these, the writ petitions are bereft of merit and therefore they are dismissed. (V.GIRI, JUDGE)ma W.P ( C) Nos. 26600, 27317, 27201, 27487 of 2006 & 6415, 6419,4308 of 20077 W.P ( C) Nos. 26600, 27317, 27201, 27487 of 2006 & 6415, 6419,4308 of 20078K.THANKAPPAN,JCRL.A. NO.92 OF 1999ORDER W.P ( C) Nos. 26600, 27317, 27201, 27487 of 2006 & 6415, 6419,4308 of 20079 25th May, 2007
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.