High Court of KeralaDivision Bench2017-11-28Original Petition disposed of (disposed)

K.A. Indira and others v. State of Kerala and others

Case / Petition Number:OP(KAT).No. 469 of 2017 (Z)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. R. Ramachandra Menon
Shircy V.
Judgment Date: 2017-11-28
Court Decision / Holding: Original Petition stands disposed of. The Court affirms the Tribunal’s stance against general regularisation but extends the limited relief described in the concluding paragraph of Ext.P3: 10% of the total vacancies for SC Promoters in the District may be filled from those categorized as Social Workers, with an age cap of 50 years; preference is given to those aged 40–50 who meet educational qualifications. Only petitioners who fall within the scope of the concluding paragraph of Ext.P3 and satisfy the required criteria will be considered for this limited relief. The Court declines to grant broader regularisation and leaves room for applying this nuanced relief to the petitioners who qualify. The order aligns with Umadevi, Piara Singh, and Article 142 principles in a limited and specific manner.
Final Disposition: Original Petition disposed of (disposed)

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

K.A. Indira
Sivanandhan
Raju.K.R
Ayyappan.K
Jayasudha.S
Prasanna.S
Chellavalsala
Sheejamol.A
Nisha.V
Sarath Kumar.R

Respondents

The State of Kerala; represented by the Secretary to Government, Department of Scheduled Caste Development, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram
The Secretary to Government, Local Self Government Department, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram
The Director, Scheduled Caste Development Department, Directorate of Scheduled Caste Development Department, Thiruvananthapuram
The Scheduled Caste District Development Officer, Palakkad District
SC Development Officer, SC Development Office, Kuzhalmannam Block, Palakkad
SC Development Officer, SC Development Office, Chittur Block, Palakkad
The Secretary, Thenkurissi Grama Panchayath, Palakkad
SC Development Officer, SC Development Office, Malampuzha Block, Palakkad
The Secretary, Puthupariyaram Grama Panchayath, Palakkad
The Secretary, Kuzhalmannam Grama Panchayath, Palakkad
The Secretary, Kuthanur Grama Panchayath, Palakkad
The Secretary, Kottayi Grama Panchayath, Palakkad
The Secretary, Mathur Panchayath, Palakkad
The Secretary, PerumattY Grama Panchayath, Palakkad
The Secretary, Nalleppully Grama Panchayath, Palakkad
The Secretary, Kozhinjampara Grama Panchayath, Palakkad
The Secretary, Polpullu Grama Panchayath, Palakkad

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. P. Nandakumar
• Sri. S. Aneesh
• Smt. Amrutha Sanjeev

Counsels for Respondents

• Government Pleader
• Sri. Nirmal S., SC, PerumattY Grama Panchayat
• Sri. Shyam J. Sam, SC, Nallepilly Grama Panchayat

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Kerala High Court petition challenges the Kerala Administrative Tribunal’s (KAT) order in OA No.2250 of 2016 (dated 23 May 2017) which held that regularisation of service for SC Promoters is not permissible under the law declared in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi and others (2006) 4 SCC 1. The petitioners—ten SC Promoters employed in various Gram Panchayats—argue for regularisation or, at least, a scheme to regularise through a limited, rule-based process. The Court examines Ext.P3 (the Court’s decision on 31 Aug 2017), which refused general regularisation but permitted a limited relief: modifying Annexure A17 so that 10% of district vacancies for SC Promoters could be filled from “Social Workers” up to age 50, with preference for those aged 40–50 if qualified. The judgment notes that the Supreme Court’s Umadevi principle bars regularisation except as specifically allowed; however, considering the record and chronology, the Court extends the concluding paragraph of Ext.P3 to petitioner’s benefit to the limited extent described. The court reiterates that no sweeping regularisation is ordered, rejects the broader relief sought, and disposes of the petitions accordingly, while ensuring alignment with constitutional and statutory constraints including Article 142 invoked to grant limited relief.

Provisions of Law Cited

Article 142, Constitution of IndiaSecretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi and others [(2006) 4 SCC 1]

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

No right to regularisation; regularisation is not a matter of right (Umadevi doctrine)
Extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 to grant relief/justice in exceptional cases

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicants contend that although the Tribunal ruled against regularisation in OA No.2250 of 2016 following the Umadevi principle, Ext.P3 provides a roadmap for limited relief. They urge the Court to extend those observations to permit regularisation or at least a defined process for regularisation, within the 10% vacancies designated for SC Promoters and subject to age and qualification criteria. They argue equity for those who have served for years under schemes and meet the educational and age qualifications, seeking a modified inclusion under Annexure A17 and continuity of service pending a formal policy or scheme as permitted by Article 142 of the Constitution.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that Umadevi governs the law on regularisation: no regularisation is a right, and there is no power to frame a general scheme for regularisation at best. They rely on the principle that extraordinary relief under Article 142 cannot override statutory rules and that the Tribunal’s conclusion should stand. They also argue that Piara Singh was not applicable to extend relief in this context and emphasize the court’s authority to grant limited relief only in line with Ext.P3 and not to permit blanket regularisation.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi and others	[(2006) 4 SCC 1]	Positive	The judgment relies on the Umadevi principle that regularisation is not a matter of right and supports the Tribunal’s and Court’s approach in denying broad regularisation.
State of Haryana v. Piara Singh	(AIR 1992 SC 2130)	Distinguished	The Court considered Piara Singh but held it against in this context, suggesting the facts here do not warrant relief under that decision; the relief sought is narrower and guided by Ext.P3’s concluding paragraph rather than Piara Singh.

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 K.A. Indira and others v. State of Kerala 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 MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON** **& THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.** **TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017 / 7TH AGRAHAYANA, 1939** **OP(KAT).No. 469 of 2017** ## **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OA 2250/2016 of KERALA ADMINISTRATIVETRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 23-05-2017** ## **PETITIONER(S)/APPLICANTS** ## **1 K.A.INDIRA,** **D/O PREMNAVAS.C,AGED 47 YEARS,RESIDING AT PONNAMPILAKKAL HOUSE,KUZHALLAMANNAM.P.O,PALAKKAD-678702,WORKING AS SC PROMOTER KOZHALMANNAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH,KUZHALMANNAM.P.O, PALAKKAD-678702.** ## **2 SIVANANDHAN,** **S/O.SANKARAN,AGED 32 YEARS,RESIDING AT MUNDATHUKULAM HOUSE,** **CHIMBUKAD.P.O,KUTHANUR,PALAKKAD-678721.WORKING AS SC PROMOTER,KUTHANUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH,KUTHANUR.P.O, PALAKKAD-678721.** ## **3 RAJU.K.R,** **S/O.RAJAN.K.K,AGED 28 YEARS,RESIDING AT KOZHIYODU(H0), KOTTAYI(PO),PALAKKAD-678572,WORKING AS SC PROMOTER, KOTTAYI GRAMA PANCHAYATH,KOTTAYI.P.O,PALAKKAD-678572.** ## **4 AYYAPPAN.K,** **S/O.KUNCHUVELAN.A,AGED 36 YEARS,RESIDING AT KOZHIKKATTUPARAMBU.P.O,THACHANKAD.P.O,MATHUR, PALAKKAD-678517,WORKING AS SC PROMOTER, MATHUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH,THANAKKAD.P.O,PALAKKAD-678571.** ## **5 JAYASUDHA.S,** **W/O.SASIKUMAR,AGED 33 YEARS,RESIDING AT KIZHAKKETHARA HOUSE,** **VILAYANCHATHANUR,THENKURISSI,PALAKKAD-678671,WORKING AS SC PROMOTER,SC DEVELOPMENT OFFICE,THENKURISSI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PALAKKAD-678671.** ## **OP(KAT).No. 469 of 2017 (Z)** ## **6 PRASANNA.S,** **W/O.MANI.K,AGED 30 YEARS,RESIDING AT ERALAMPULLY(H), VILAYODI.P.O,CHITTUR,PALAKKAD-678103,WORKING AS SC PROMOTER, PERUMATTY GRAMA PANCHAYATH,VANDITHAVALAM.P.O,PALAKKAD-678553.** ## **7 CHELLAVALSALA,** **D/O.VELAYUDHAN,AGED 29,RESIDING AT VADAKKUMPURAM(H), NELLAPULLY.P.O,CHITTUR,PALAKKAD-678553,WORKING AS SC PROMOTER,NALLEPULLY GRAMA PANCHAYATH,NALLEPULLY.P.O, PALAKKAD-678553.** ## **8 SHEEJAMOL.A,** **D/OANUKUTTY,AGED 34 YEARS,RESIDING AT KARAKARAKALAM, NETTUKAL.P.O,GANDHINAGAR,KOZHIYAMPARA,PALAKKAD-678554. WORKING AS SC PROMOTER,KOZHIYAMPARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KOZHIYAMPARA.P.O,PALAKKAD-678555.** ## **9 NISHA.V,** **D/O.VELAYUDHAN,AGED 29 YEARS,RESIDING AT MATHAPARAMBU, PANAYOOR.P.O,POLPULLY,ATHIKODE,CHITTOOR,PALAKKAD-677552, WORKING AS SC PROMOTER,POLPULLY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PANAYOOR.P.O,PALAKKAD-678552.** ## **10 SARATH KUMAR.R,** **S/O.RAJARATHINAM,AGED 25 YEARS,RESIDING AT SREE AYYAPPANIVAS, THEKKEPARAMBU. HO,PUDUPPARIYARAM.P.O,PALAKKAD-678731, WORKING AS SC PROMOTER,PUDUPPARIYARAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PUDUPARIYARAM.P.O,PALAKKAD-678731.** ## **BY ADVS.SRI.P.NANDAKUMAR** **SRI.S.ANEESH** **SMT.AMRUTHA SANJEEV** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:** **1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,DEPARTMENT OF SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT,SECRETARIAT,STATUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.** **OP(KAT).No. 469 of 2017 (Z)** **2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT,STATUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.** ## **3. THE DIRECTOR,** **SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, DIRECTORATE OF SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, AYYANKALI BHAVAN,KANAKANAGAR,KOWDIAR.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695003.** **4. THE SCHEDULED CASTE DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,OFFICE OF THE SCHEDULED CASTE DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER CIVIL STATION,PALAKKAD-678001.** ## **5. SC DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,** **SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT OFFICE,KUZHALMANNAM BLOCK, PALAKKAD-678702.** ## **6. SC DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,** **SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT OFFICE,CHITTUR BLOCK, PALAKKAD-678554.** ## **7. THE SECRETARY,** - **THENKURISSI GRAMA PANCHAYATH,PALAKKAD-678671,KERALA.** ## **8. SC DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,** **SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT OFFICE,MALAMPUZHA BLOCK, MARUTHAROAD.P.O,PALAKKAD-678732,KERALA.** ## **9. THE SECRETARY,** **PUTHUPARIYARAM,GRAMA PANCHAYATH,PALAKKAD-678731, KERALA.** ## **10. THE SECRETARY,** **KUZHALMANNAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH,KUZHALMANNAM.P.O, PALAKKAD-678702,KERALA.** ## **11. THE SECRETARY,** **KUTHANUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH,KUTHANUR.P.O, PALAKKAD-678721,KERALA.** ## **12. THE SECRETARY,** **KOTTAYI GRAMA PANCHAYATH,KOTTAYI.P.O, PALAKKAD-678572,KERALA.** ## **OP(KAT).No. 469 of 2017 (Z)** ## **13. THE SECRETARY,** **MATHUR PANCHAYATH,MATHUR,PALAKKAD-678571,KERALA.** ## **14. THE SECRETARY,** **PERUMATTY GRAMA PANCHAYATH,VANDITHAVALAM.P.O, PALAKKAD-6785534,KERALA.** ## **15. THE SECRETARY,** **NALLEPPULLY GRAMA PANCHAYATH,NALLEPULLY.P.O, CHITTUR,PALAKKAD-678553,KERALA.** ## **16. THE SECRETARY,** **KOZHINJAMPARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH,KOZHINJAMPARA.P.O, PALAKKAD-678555,KERALA.** ## **17. THE SECRETARY,** **POLPULLY GRAMA PANCHAYATH,PANAYOOR.P.O,PALAKKAD-678552,KERALA.** **R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **R BY SRI.NIRMAL.S., SC, PERUMATTY GRAMA PANCHAYAT R BY SRI.SYAM J.SAM, SC, NALLEPILLY GRAMA PANCHAYAT** **THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28-11-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **OP(KAT).No. 469 of 2017 (Z)** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 23.05.2017 IN O.A.NO.2250 OF 2016 AND CONNECTED CASES EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF O.A.NO.2250 OF 2016. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN O.P(KAT)NO.125 OF 2017 AND CONNECTED CASES.** ## **TRUE COPY** **P.A TO JUDGE** ## **SMM** ## **P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON & SHIRCY V.,JJ.** ----------------------------------------------------------- O.P.(KAT).No.469 of 2017 ---------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 28[th] day of November, 2017 ## J U D G M E N T ## P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J. The petitioners were applicants in O.A.No.2250 of 2016 filed before the Tribunal claiming regularisation of service and such other reliefs. The above Original Application was considered along with other connected matters and a common verdict was passed by the Tribunal on 23.05.2017, holding that no regularisation of service was possible by virtue of the law declared by the Honourable Supreme Court in **Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi and others [(2006) 4 SCC 1].** This was sought to be challenged by several other aggrieved applicants by filing different original petitions before this Court. The above cases came up for consideration and Ext.P3 verdict was passed by this Court on 31.08.2017, upholding the finding of the Tribunal that no regularisation has possible. 2. The prayer to enable the applicants to continue in service with reference to the ruling rendered by the Apex Court in **State of Haryana v. Piara Singh (AIR 1992 SC 2130)** was also dealt with in detail and held against O.P.(KAT).No.469 of 2017 2 applicants/petitioners. The prayer to direct the State Government to frame a Scheme for providing regularisation of appointments of the applicants was also declined, for the conspicuous absence of power as vested with the Honourable Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. However, considering the sequence of events and materials available on record, some limited relief was extended as contained in the concluding paragraph of Ext.P3, which is in the following terms: “Only one thing remains to be considered, i.e., even admittedly, 10% of the total vacancies of SC Promoters in the District are to be filled up by considering the persons, who are working as 'Social Workers' as dealt with under Clause II of Annexure A17. In that case, the maximum age limit is '50 years'; where as it is 18-40 years in other cases, as mentioned in Clause I(ii) of Anneuxre A17. It is conceded across the Bar that the petitioners' applications in response to Annexure A17 will be considered, if they satisfy the requirements (educational qualification and age factor) for fresh engagement. But in so far as the petitioner who were continuing in service for more than 8 years and are stated as having crossed the age of 40 years, it is to be considered, whether they O.P.(KAT).No.469 of 2017 3 could be identified by placing them enbloc under this segment, i.e. 10% of the total number of vacancies available in the District, where the maximum age is '50 years'. We find it appropriate to cause the above modification to the said extent, i.e. In respect of this group, preference shall be given to the persons having the age group- above 40 years and upto 50 years and that only if no qualified person satisfying the above requirement is available under this Group, will it go to the other persons of lesser age, i.e., less than 40 years. Clauses I & II of Annexure A17 will stand modified to the said extent. Subject to the above, we decline interference and the Original Petitions are dismissed.” 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the reliefs sought for by the petitioners would stand confined to extension of the benefit flowing from the observations and directions as contained in the concluding paragraph of Ext.P3. 4. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 5. In the above circumstances, we find that the issue involved stands already concluded by virtue of Ext.P3 verdict dated 31.08.2017 passed by this Court. If the petitioners come within the purview of the concluding paragraph of Ext.P3, this O.P.(KAT).No.469 of 2017 4 Court finds it appropriate to extend similar benefit to the petitioners as well. It is ordered accordingly. Original Petition stands disposed of. ## **P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE** **SHIRCY V. JUDGE** smm