Anumod C. v. Secretary to Government of Kerala, Excise Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram; Commissioner of Excise, Commissionerate of Excise, Excise Head Quarters, Vikas Bhavan, NANDAVANAM, Thiruvananthapuram; The Deputy Excise Commissioner, Excise Intelligence, South Zone, Vikas Bhavan, NANDAVANAM, Thiruvananthapuram; The Deputy Commissioner, Excise Division Office, Iron Bridge P.O., Alappuzha
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- P. R. Ramachandra Menon, J.
- R. Narayana Pisharadi, J.
- Judgment Date
- 2018-02-21
- Court Decision / Holding
- We find no merit to interdict the verdict. O.P. fails and the same is dismissed accordingly.
- Final Disposition
- Dismissed
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- ANUMOD.C., S/O.Chitrajan
Respondents
- The Secretary to Government of Kerala, Excise Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram
- The Commissioner of Excise, Commissionerate of Excise, Excise Head Quarters, Vikas Bhavan, NANDAVANAM, Thiruvananthapuram
- The Deputy Excise Commissioner, Excise Intelligence, South Zone, Vikas Bhavan, NANDAVANAM, Thiruvananthapuram
- The Deputy Commissioner, Excise Division Office, Iron Bridge P.O., Alappuzha
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Sri Prathap. S.R.K.
- • Sri P.L.Venu Kumar
- • Sri Venu Valiya Parambil
- • Sri Unnikrishnan
- • SMT.A.S. SANGEETHA
Counsels for Respondents
- • Sri P.N. Santhosh, Senior Government Pleader
Case Synopsis & Summary
Anumod C., a daily wage driver engaged since 2008 in the Excise Department, challenged Ext. P5, a memo inviting a candidate from the employment exchange for interview for the vacancy of driver, contending that such action infringes his fundamental rights under Articles 14, 16 and 21. He approached the Kerala Administrative Tribunal seeking quashing of Annexure-A5 and to restrain the selection process pending a sanctioned filling of the post. The Tribunal dismissed the OA, noting that the petitioner’s engagement was only as a daily wage worker and not on a sanctioned post; it held that reliance on the Supreme Court’s Piara Singh decision was misplaced because Piara Singh concerned temporary employees against sanctioned posts, not a situation like this. The case involved provisional filling under Rule 9A(1) of Part II KS & SSR. The Tribunal observed that the petitioner’s engagement since 2008 did not bring him within the Umadevi framework for regularization, as Umadevi permits relief only for ten years or more continuous service in sanctioned posts as a one-time measure. The Government Pleader argued that the vacancy would be filled through a proper selection process via the employment exchange, and that the action was not a colourable exercise of power. The High Court, agreeing with the Tribunal, held there was no merit in intervening and dismissed the original petition. It also noted that the petitioner had not impleaded affected parties in the tribunal, so the prayer could not be entertained.
Provisions of Law Cited
Legal Doctrines & Maxims
- Regularization cannot be a matter of course.
- Umadevi v. Karnataka: relief can be granted only as a one-time measure for ten years or more continuous service in sanctioned posts.
- Piara Singh: temporary hands cannot be replaced by another temporary hand (cited but found not directly applicable).
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioner contends Ext.P5 and the related letters issued by the fourth respondent for employment from the employment exchange violate Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution. He seeks to quash Annexure-A5 and to restrain appointment until a sanctioned post is created, arguing that continuing daily wage engagement protected him, and relies on Piara Singh to claim that a temporary employee cannot be replaced by another temporary employee. He asserts lack of due process and seeks a fair, rule‑based appointment process, asserting violations of fundamental rights and the improper use of power.
Contentions of Respondents
The respondents contend that the petitioner was engaged only as a daily wage driver, and the vacancy is to be filled through a proper selection process under Rule 9A(1) of Part-II KS & SSR. They highlight that the engagement commenced as provisional daily wage work and that the department acted within statutory rules via employment exchange, not through colorable exercise of power. They acknowledge Umadevi’s rule against automatic regularization, but argue the petitioner does not fall within its ten-year-one-time relief, as his engagement began in 2008 and the post is sanctioned but yet to be filled by due process.
Cited Precedents (2)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| State of Haryana and others v. Piara Singh and Others | 1992 4 SCC 118 | Mentioned Only | Cited in context but deemed not relevant to the instant case; not used to decide the matter. |
| Umadevi v. Karnataka | 2006 4 SCC 1 | Positive | Cited to articulate the general rule against automatic regularization and the one-time relief principle for ten years’ continuous service in sanctioned posts. |
Diagnostic Tool
Does this judgment govern your specific facts?
Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Anumod C. v. Secretary to Government of Kerala, Excise Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram; Commissioner of Excise, Commissionerate of Excise, Excise Head Quarters, Vikas Bhavan, NANDAVANAM, Thiruvananthapuram; The Deputy Excise Commissioner, Excise Intelligence, South Zone, Vikas Bhavan, NANDAVANAM, Thiruvananthapuram; The Deputy Commissioner, Excise Division Office, Iron Bridge P.O., Alappuzha and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.