High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2019-01-25Writ petition disposed of

B.P.Rabeehathulla and Latheef T.P. v Union of India and Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 5529 of 2015

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P.V. ASHA
Judgment Date: 2019-01-25
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition disposed of. The court upheld Ext.P1 as consistent with Articles 14 and 16, noted the petitioners’ lack of sanctioned posts or competitive recruitment, and held that they do not have a right to continued service outside the 89-day rotation. Petitioners would be governed by the Ext.P1 scheme for 89 days in rotation, with the possibility of pursuing any ID Act remedy if applicable.
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed of

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

B.P. Rabeehathulla
Latheef T.P.

Respondents

Union of India
Administrator, Union Territory of Lakshadweep, Kavaratti
Director of Panchayats, UT Lakshadweep, Kavaratti
Secretary (Panchayats), UT Lakshadweep, Kavaratti
Executive Officer, Village Panchayat, UT Lakshadweep, Kiltan
Chairperson, UT Lakshadweep, Kiltan
Executive Engineer (Electrical), Electrical Division Office, UT Lakshadweep, Kavaratti
Additional Respondent R7 (impleaded)

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri N.Unnikrishnan

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri M. Manu.S (CGC), Administration of UT Lakshadweep
• Sri S. Radhakrishnan, SC

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition (Civil) concerns two daily-wage workers employed by the Village Dweep Panchayat, Kiltan, Lakshadweep, challenging Ext.P1 dated 12-02-2015 issued by the Secretary (Panchayats) in implementation of the Central Administrative Tribunal order in OA No.29 of 2013 and connected cases. Ext.P1 prescribes a maximum engagement of 89 days for casual labourers, with a rotation scheme to appoint a fresh set of casual labourers after every 89-day spell. The petitioners—one employed as a Labourer assisting a Lineman, the other as a Driver—allege that their long-standing engagements without through-going selection and without a sanctioned post violate their rights and the constitutional scheme. Respondents contend that Ext.P1 is designed to maximize employment opportunities for the unemployed islanders, ensure transparency, and promote equal opportunity in accordance with the Constitution, citing the CAT order and the Uma Devi decision. The High Court notes prior judgments upholding Ext.P1 as consistent with Articles 14 and 16 and concludes that the petitioners’ initial engagement was not through a sanctioned post or proper competitive process; they cannot claim a right to continued service beyond the rotation. The judgment emphasizes transparency, rotation, and equal opportunity, with room for post-facto ID Act remedies if available, and disposes of the petition while upholding Ext.P1.

Provisions of Law Cited

Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 16Industrial Disputes Act (ID Act)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Equality of opportunity in public employment through rotation
Transparency in appointment
Uma Devi principle (State of Karnataka v Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submitted that Ext.P1, implementing a rigid 89-day cap and rotation, threatens their longstanding engagements, created without due process or competitive selection, and undermines their livelihood. They argued their appointments were not made against sanctioned posts and lacked a fair opportunity to compete; the scheme may terminate their service cyclically, contrary to Articles 14 and 16. They urged that their continuous service and the absence of a formal process should protect them from arbitrary termination, and they sought relief under the Industrial Disputes Act if applicable.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contended Ext.P1 reflects a policy to maximize local employment by rotating casual workers across 89-day periods, ensuring transparency and broad participation. They argued the policy aligns with the constitutional scheme (Articles 14 and 16) and the Uma Devi judgment, preventing indefinite or permanent absorption without a sanctioned post. They asserted the 89-day engagement is a valid administrative mechanism to share employment and that petitioners would receive their rightful share in rotation; Ext.P1 simply prescribes procedure to ensure equal opportunity and transparency in village panchayat employment.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
State of Karnataka v Uma Devi	(2006) 4 SCC 1	Positive	Cited to support that casual labour engagements can be regulated by rotation and that there is no automatic right to permanent employment, aligning with the 89-day scheme and constitutional Articles 14 and 16.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

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 B.P.Rabeehathulla and Latheef T.P. v Union of India and Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA** **FRIDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 5TH MAGHA, 1940 WP(C).No. 5529 of 2015** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **1 B.P.RABEEHATHULLA AGED 38 YEARS S/O. MOHAMMED KOYA.P.N., WORKING AS LINEMAN HELPER ASSISTANT(SKILLED LABOURER), VILLAGE DWEEP PANCHAYAT AND ELECTRICITY DEPARTMENT, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP, KILTAN ISLAND-682558 AND RESIDING AT BALIYAPURA HOUSE, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHDWEEP, KILTAN ISLAND-682558. 2 LATHEEF.T.P. AGED 37 YEARS S/O. ATTEKA.P., WORKING AS DRIVER(SKILLED LABOURER), GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL, VILLAGE DWEEP PANCHAYT, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP, KILTAN ISLAND-6825586 AND RESIDING AT THIRUVATHAPURA HOUSE, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHDWEEP, KILTAN ISLAND-682558. BY ADV. SRI.N.UNNIKRISHNAN** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** |**1**|**UNION OF INDIA**| |---|---| ||**REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNEMNT OF**| ||**INDIA,**| ||**MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL AND PUBLIC GRIEVANCES,**| ||**DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING,**| ||**NEW DELHI-110001.**| **WP(C).No. 5529 of 2015** **2** - **2 THE ADMINISTRATOR UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP KAVARATTI-682555.** - **3 THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATHS UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP, KAVARATTI-682555.** - **4 THE SECRETARY(PANCHAYATHS) UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP, KAVARATTI-682555.** - **5 THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER VILLAGE PANCHAYAT, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHDWEEP, KILTAN-682558.** - **6 THE CHAIRPERESON UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP, KILTAN-682558.** - 7 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL), ELECTRICAL DIVISION OFFICE, U.T OF LAKSHADWEEP, KAVARATTI – 682 555** - **** ADDITIONAL RESPONDENT R7 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 08.09.2015 IN I.A.NO.12707/2015** **BY ADVS. SRI.MANU.S, CGC, ADMINISTRATION OF THE UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP** **SRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,SC** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25.01.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No. 5529 of 2015** **3** ## **JUDGMENT** **The petitioners, who are engaged on daily wages as labourers to assist the Helper to Lineman and as Driver respectively, by the Village Dweep Panchayat, Kiltan in the Union Territory of Lakshadweep, are challenging Ext.P1 order issued by the Secretary (Panchayats), Directorate of Panchayats under the Administration of the Union Territory of Lakshadweep ('Administration' for short), on 12.02.2015 in implementation of the orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam in O.A.No.29 of 2013 and connected cases.** **2. Ext.P1 scheme formulated by the Secretary of Panchayats provides that the maximum duration of engagement of a Casual Labourer shall be 89 days and on completion of 89 days, another set of casual labourers shall be appointed on rotation basis.** **WP(C).No. 5529 of 2015** **4** **3. The 1[st] petitioner claims that he has been continuing as Labourer to assist Helper to Lineman from 01.07.2007 onwards and he is getting wages admissible to skilled labourers. The 2[nd] petitioner claims that he is continuing as Driver on daily wages on appointment as per Ext.P8 order from 10.04.2010 onwards, with a break for one day each on completion of every 89 days. The writ petition is filed apprehending termination of their services based on Ext.P1 order.** **4. Respondents 2 to 5 have filed a counter affidavit stating that Ext.P1 order was issued in implementation of the order dated 06.03.2014 of the CAT in O.A.No.29 of 2013 and explaining the procedure to be followed and the purpose behind the scheme in Ext.P1, to see that maximum unemployed hands in the Panchayats are getting the opportunity to get employment at least for 89 days consistent with the constitutional scheme. It** **WP(C).No. 5529 of 2015** **5** **is stated that the petitioners will also get their share of 89 days in accordance with their turn on rotation.** **5. I have already considered several cases filed by similarly situated persons raising identical contentions in my judgment dated 20.08.2018 in W.P.(C) No.5289 of 2015 and 26748 of 2018, etc, upholding Ext.P1 scheme for appointment for 89 days, as it is consistent with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, so that public employment, which is the wealth of the nation, can be shared by the unemployed persons by rotation.** **6. In this case also petitioners do not have a case that their initial engagement was by any process of selection. Therefore it is evident that their appointments were not made in tune with constitutional scheme, consistent with Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Their appointment was admittedly as** **WP(C).No. 5529 of 2015** **6** **casual labourers. It is evident from Ext.P8 that the engagement was being made imposing a break of one after every 89 days. They do not have a case that they were being engaged against any particular sanctioned post. Even assuming that there were sanctioned posts, their appointments are not made after inviting applications and affording opportunity to all the persons eligible. Therefore they cannot have any right to resist Ext.P1 order which provides for the procedure to ensure equal opportunity in employment to the eligible hands who find a place in the register to be maintained. Ext.P1 order only prescribes the procedure to be followed by the Panchayats for engagement of casual labourers. Petitioners do not have any right to continue in service on the ground that the direction is not issued by the Village Panchayat. There is nothing illegal in issuing guidelines to the Panchayat to see that the Panchayat acts with** **WP(C).No. 5529 of 2015** **7** **transparency and it ensures employment to the unemployed islanders consistent with the constitutional Scheme as directed in the judgment of the Apex Court in** _**State of Karnataka v Uma Devi**_ **: (2006) 4 SCC 1.** **7. In para 15 of the judgment in W.P.** **(c) No. 5289 of 2015, it was directed as follows:** _**“15. However, it is seen that the respondents are operating a single list for engeging persons for any employment, irrespective of the qualification required or nature of employment. Such a procedure will cause unnecessary delay in providing employment/utilising the services of qualified hands at the earliest opportunity. I am of the view that preparation of separate lists for posts/employments which require special/technical qualification will be appropriate and it would serve the interest of employee as well as employer. Apart from avoiding delay in gettiing qualified hands, the aspirants for employment will have an idea about the possible intervals between each spell of their appointments. The respondents shall consider whether such separate list is necessary to avoid delay.”**_ **8. Therefore, petitioners, who are** **WP(C).No. 5529 of 2015** **8** **similarly situated like the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.5289 of 2015 and 26748 of 2018, would also be governed by the aforesaid judgments and they would not have any right to continue in service. However, their cases are also liable to be considered in accordance with Ext.P1 order, for employment for 89 days in accordance with their turn, once the register is prepared pursuant to Ext.P1 order. It is made clear that this judgment will not stand in the way of adjudication of the claim, if any of the petitioners under the Industrial Disputes Act, in accordance with law, in case, they approach the statutory forum to adjudicate the disputes under the ID Act.** **With the above observations, this writ petition is disposed of.** **Sd/-** **P.V.ASHA, JUDGE.** **WW** **WP(C).No. 5529 of 2015** **9** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER F.NO.5/8/2014DOP DATED 12-02-2015 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE SSLC (PAGE NOS. 1 AND 6) OF FIRST PETITIONER.** **EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE NATIONAL TRADE CERTIFICATE BEARING NO.386250 JOINTLY ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR VOCATIONAL TRAINING AND THE SECRETARY, STATE COUNCIL FOR VOCATIONAL TRAINING.** **EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDEDR F.NO.1/2/07VDP(KTN) DATED 29-06-2007 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE DATED 20-8-2009 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER F.NO.2/11/2011DOP/65 DATED 18-01-2012 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF SSLC (PAGE NOS.1 AND 6) OF SECOND PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM F.NO. 4/1/2003-VDP DATED 02-08-2008. EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 6-3-2014 IN O.A. NO.29/2013 AND CONNECTED CASES. EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 27.08.2015. EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF INTERIM ORDER DATED 08.09.2015 IN W.P.(C) NO.5529/2015. EXHIBIT P12 A TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 10.09.2015 ADDRESSED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS.** **WP(C).No. 5529 of 2015** ## **10** **EXHIBIT P13 A TRUE COPY OF LETTER F.NO.15/5/2012VDP(KTN) VOL-III DATED 27.07.2018 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.** **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT R1(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR F.NO.5/6/2003-DOP&RD DATED 12.11.2003. EXHIBIT R1(B) A TRUE COPY OF THE F.NO.5/26/2003-DOP&RD DATED 04.11.2008. EXHIBIT R1(C) A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.08.2009 IN O.A.NO.611/2008. EXHIBIT R1(D) A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT IN OP(CAT) NO.133 OF 2012 AND 606 OF 2012.**