High Court of KeralaDivision Bench2017-07-12Dismissed (Original Petition devoid of merit)

Prasannakumara Panicker and others v. State of Kerala and others

Case / Petition Number:OP(KAT)No. 252 of 2017 (Z)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. R. Ramachandra Menon
Shircy V.
Judgment Date: 2017-07-12
Court Decision / Holding: The Original Petition is devoid of merit, and it is dismissed accordingly.
Final Disposition: Dismissed (Original Petition devoid of merit)

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

PRASANNAKUMARA PANICKER
ANIL KUMAR. A
RAJESH
ALEX K KURIAN
NAVAZ K.E
JOHNSON GON
SUNIL U
MUJEEB M
SAJITH KUMAR P
RENJITH P.R
SANDRAN K.V
SREEKANTH
SHYAM GHOSH
BIJU S

Respondents

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHURAM 695 001.
THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 010.
THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE COASTAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.
THE DISTRICT POLICE SUPERINTENDENT, ALAPPUZHA 688 001.
THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER COASTAL POLICE STATION, THOTTAPPALLY, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, 688 563.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri ASP Kurup
• Sri Sadchith.P.Kurup

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. T. Rajasekharan Nair

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Kerala High Court petition challenges Ext.P4 of OA EKM 433/2016, which was disposed by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal. The petitioners—fourteen coastal police personnel including boat commanders, boat lascars, drivers and guards—were initially engaged under a government scheme for a fixed term (89 days) with consolidated wages at coastal stations in Alappuzha. Their counsel contends that after initial engagement the posts were continued beyond 89 days and, by 2016, Annexure A5 appeared to replace them with fresh hands. They approached the Tribunal seeking (i) continuation in their posts, (ii) a declaration that they should not be terminated to accommodate temporary staff, (iii) consideration of Annexures A4 and A6 representations, and (iv) other appropriate relief. The State respondents resisted, arguing that the engagements were temporary under a scheme without sanctioned posts and without a regular selection process; no vested right to continue existed. The Tribunal declined regularisation in line with the law laid down in Secretary, State of Karnataka & others v. Umadevi, but allowed the petitioners to continue until finalisation of the selection process and to participate with due weight for prior service. Ext.P4 was thus in the Tribunal’s view legally sound. The High Court ultimately held the petition devoid of merit, noting Piara Singh does not support the petitioners’ cause given the scheme-based, non-regular nature of the appointments. The petition is dismissed.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Umadevi doctrine: No regularisation of temporary employees without sanctioned posts; vacancies must be filled via proper selection process.
Piara Singh principle: temporary employees cannot be perpetually used to substitute for sanctioned posts; regularisation requires proper recruitment process.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submit that though initially engaged for 89 days, their services were extended over the years and, by 2016, a fresh recruitment notification (Annexure A5) was issued, effectively displacing them. They seek continuing in service, non-termination to accommodate temporary staff, and regularisation via consideration of representations. They argue there was a vested right to continue given the long service and that the selection process must consider prior experience.

Contentions of Respondents

The State contends the engagements were temporary under a scheme with no sanctioned posts or regular selection process. There is no legal right to continuity beyond the contract period. Reliance is placed on Umadevi to deny regularisation. Piara Singh is cited to discuss the limits of temporary appointments. The respondents insist Ext.P4 conforms to law and that substitution by new temporary staff cannot be compelled into a permanent appointment.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Secretary, State of Karnataka & others v. Umadevi	2006 (4) SCC 1	Positive	The court applies the Umadevi doctrine to deny regularisation of temporary employees and to emphasize that regular appointments require sanctioned posts and proper selection processes.
State of Haryana & others v. Piara Singh & others	1992 (4) SCC 118	Distinguished	Cited for relevant principle but distinguished on facts; the present case involves a scheme-based engagement without sanctioned posts, and the court notes Piara Singh does not support regularisation in this context.

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 Prasannakumara Panicker 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.** **WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JULY 2017/21ST ASHADHA, 1939** **OP(KAT).No. 252 of 2017 (Z)** **----------------------------** ## **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OAEKM 433/2016 of KERALA ADMINISTRATIVETRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 30-06-2017** **PETITIONER(S):** - **-------------** ## **1. PRASANNAKUMARA PANICKER** - **AGED 47, S/O. JANARDHANAN NAIR, BOAT COMMANDER, INTERCEPTOR RESCUE BOAT, COASTAL POLICE STATION, THOTTAPPALLY, ALAPPUZHA 688 563, RESIDING AT MUNDUCHIRAKKAL, MUTHUKULAM NORTH, CHOOLATHERUVU P.O, ALAPPUZHA 690 506.** **2. ANIL KUMAR. A,** - **AGED 41, S/O. ASOKAN, SPECIAL MARINE HOME GUARD, INTERCEPTOR RESCUE BOAT, COASTAL POLICE STATION, THOTTAPPALLY, ALAPPUZHA 688 563, RESIDING AT POONTHOPPIL, THOTTAPPALLY P.O, ALAPPUZHA 688 563.** **3. RAJESH** - **AGED 39, S/O. RAJAPPAN, SPECIAL MARINE HOME GUARD, INTERCEPTOR RESCUE BOAT, COASTAL POLICE STATION, THOTTAPPALLY, ALAPPUZHA 688 563, RESIDING AT MADATHIL KIZHAKKETHIL, THOTTAPPALLY P.O, ALAPPUZHA 688 563.** **4. ALEX K KURIAN** - **AGED 24, S/O.P.C.KURIAN, BOAT LASCAR, INTERCEPTOR BOAT, COASTAL POLICE STATION, THOTTAPPALLY, ALAPPUZHA 688 563, RESIDING AT PALLICHIRA VEEDU, PULINKUNNU P.O, ALAPPUZHA 688 504.** ## **5. NAVAZ K.E** - **AGED 33, S/O. MOOSA, BOAT LASCAR, INTERCEPTOR BOAT, COASTAL POLICE STATION, THOTTAPPALLY, ALAPPUZHA 688 563, RESIDING AT THEKKETHAI VEETTIL, POOCHAKKAL P.O, ALAPPUZHA 688 526.** ## **6. JOHNSON GON** - **AGED 36, S/O. SALVAS BOAT LASCAR, INTERCEPTOR BOAT, COASTAL POLICE STATION, THOTTAPPALLY, ALAPPUZHA 688 563, RESIDING AT T.M.CHIRAYIL, AYIRAM THENGU, ALUMPEEDIKA P.O, ALAPPUZHA 690 547.** ## **7. SUNIL U** - **AGED 42, S/O. UMANANDAN, BOAT DRIVER, INTERCEPTOR BOAT, COASTAL POLICE STATION, THOTTAPPALLY, ALAPPUZHA 688 563, RESIDING AT MUNDELIL, PATHIYNAKARA, THRIKKUNNAPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA 690 547.** **OP(KAT).No. 252 of 2017 (Z)** **---------------------------- --2--** ## **8. MUJEEB M** - **AGED 30, S/O. MUHAMMED BASHEER, BOAT DRIVER, INTERCEPTOR BOAT, COASTAL POLICE STATION, THOTTAPPALLY, ALAPPUZHA 688 563, RESIDING AT NEISSERYCHIRAYIL, MANNANCHERY P.O, ALAPPUZHA 688 538.** **9. SAJITH KUMAR P** - **AGED 46, S/O.P.K.PURUSHOTHAMAN, BOAT DRIVER, INTERCEPTOR BOAT, COASTAL POLICE STATION, THOTTAPPALLY, ALAPPUZHA 688 563, RESIDING AT PLATHANATHIL VEEDU [SACHU BHAVAN], KUNNAMTHANAM P.O, MALLAPPILLY, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT 689 581.** **10. RENJITH P.R** - **AGED 31, S/O.P.P.RATHESAN, BOAT DRIVER, INTERCEPTOR BOAT, COASTAL POLICE STATION, THOTTAPPALLY, ALAPPUZHA 688 563, RESIDING AT PULINTHARA, KAINAKARY, ALAPPUZHA 688 501.** **11. SANDRAN K.V** - **AGED 48, S/O. K.C.V KUNJU, BOAT DRIVER, INTERCEPTOR BOAT, COASTAL POLICE STATION, THOTTAPPALLY, ALAPPUZHA 688 563, RESIDING AT KEECHERATH, KALLIMEL P.O, MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA 690 570.** **12. SREEKANTH** - **AGED 35, S/O.SUBRAMANIAN, BOAT SRANK, INTERCEPTOR BOAT, COASTAL POLICE STATION, THOTTAPPALLY, ALAPPUZHA 688 563, RESIDING AT MURUKA BHAVANAM, KUZHITHARA P.O, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT, 690 542.** **13. SHYAM GHOSH** - **AGED 29, S/O.SASIKUMAR P, COASTAL POLICE STATION, THOTTAPPALLY, ALAPPUZHA 688 563, RESIDING AT PEIYANTYE PARAMBU, THOTTAPPILLY P.O, ALAPPUZHA 688 563.** **14. BIJU S** - **AGED 38, S/O.P.SANKARAN, BOAT SRANK, INTERCEPTOR BOAT, COASTAL POLICE STATION, THOTTAPPALLY, ALAPPUZHA 688 563, RESIDING AT AMMACHINETH, CHERAVALLY, KAYAMKULAM P.O, ALAPPUZHA 690 502.** ## **BY ADVS.SRI.ASP.KURUP SRI.SADCHITH.P.KURUP** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** ## **--------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.** **2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 010.** **OP(KAT).No. 252 of 2017 (Z)** **---------------------------- --3--** **3. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE COASTAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.** **4. THE DISTRICT POLICE SUPERINTENDENT, ALAPPUZHA 688 001.** **5. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER COASTAL POLICE STATION, THOTTAPPALLY, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, 688 563.** **R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER (Sr). SRI. T.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR** **THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-07-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **OP(KAT).No. 252 of 2017 (Z)** **----------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** - **-----------------------** - **EXHIBIT P1. COPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION O.A[EKM] NO.433/2016 FILED BY PETITIONERS WITH ANNEXURE A1 TO A6.** - **EXHIBIT P2. COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 5.6.16 FILED BY 4TH RESPONDENT IN O.A [EKM] NO.433/2016.** - **EXHIBIT P3. COPY OF REJOINDER DATED 28.8.16 FILED BY PETITIONERS IN OA [EKM] NO.433/2016.** - **EXHIBIT P4. COPY OF ORDER DATED 30.6.17 PASSED IN O.A [EKM] NO.433/2016.** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS** - **----------------------NIL** ## **TRUE COPY** ## **P.A TO JUDGE** ## **SMM** ## **P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON & SHIRCY V.,JJ. ------------------------------------------------------** ## **O.P(KAT)No.252 of 2017** ## **------------------------------------------------------** ## **Dated this the 12[th] day of July, 2017** ## **JUDGMENT** ## **P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.** Correctness and sustainability of Ext.P4 verdict passed by the Tribunal virtually declining the relief sought for made the petitioners to approach this Court by filing the present original petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Government Pleader for the respondents. 3. The sum and substance of the case projected by the petitioners is that, under a particular Scheme modified by the Central Government, the State Government being the implementing agency, sought to recruit persons like the petitioners in different capacities attached to the Coastal Police Stations in Kerala; which are mainly concerned with the activities being pursued on the O.P(KAT)No.252 of 2017 2 coastal zone and in particular, being anxious of the security of the State/borders and offences which may possibly occur in the course. It was accordingly, that the petitioners were called for selection and after completing the process, appointment orders were issued to them by the District Superintendent of Police in respect of District Alappuzha as borne by Annexure A2. The said engagement was specifically for a period of '89 days', on a consolidated monthly wages. The terms and conditions are clearly stipulated therein and based on the said order, the petitioners joined service. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, though the initial engagement against the posts of Boat Commander, Special Marine Home Guards, Boat Lascars, Boat Drivers and Boat Syrang was only for a period of 89 days, by virtue of the requirements, their service was sought to be continued and it was accordingly extended from 2012 onwards. However, on a fine O.P(KAT)No.252 of 2017 3 morning, they came across Annexure A5 notification published in the 'Madhyamam Daily' of Alappuzha Edition on 6.2.2016, seeking to deploy fresh hands, virtually substituting the petitioners. This made the petitioners to approach the Tribunal by filing the OA with the following prayers; “i) issue an order directing the 4[th] respondent to allow the applicants to continue in their respective posts. ii) To declare that applicants should not be terminated from service so as to accommodate employees on temporary basis. iii) issue an order directing the 3[rd] respondent to consider and pass orders on Annexure A4 representation. iv) issue an order directing the 4[th] respondent to consider and pass orders on Annexure A6 representation. v) Such other order or direction as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 5. The claim was sought to be resisted from the part of the State referring to actual facts and figures and sequence of events; by filing a reply statement; which was sought to be controverted by the petitioners by fling O.P(KAT)No.252 of 2017 4 a rejoinder. 6. After hearing both the sides, the Tribunal held that no benefit of regularisation could be extended to the applicants in view of the law declared by the constitution Bench of the Apex Court as per the verdict reported in _**Secretary, State of Karnataka & others v. Umadevi [2006 (4) SCC Page 1].**_ However, the Tribunal permitted the petitioners to continue in service till finalisation of the selection process initiated as per Annexure A5, also making it clear that the applicants would be permitted to participate in the above selection process and that due weightage will be granted for their experience. It was accordingly, that Ext.P4 verdict was passed dismissing the original application; which in turn is under challenge in this Original Petition. 7. The grievance of the petitioners as projected by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that, a specific contention was raised in the Original Application to the O.P(KAT)No.252 of 2017 5 effect that one set of temporary hands cannot be replaced by another set of temporary hands, by virtue of the law declared by the Supreme Court in _**State of Haryana & others v. Piara Singh & others [1992 (4) SCC 118].**_ The learned Counsel also submits that temporary employment can only be through Employment Exchange. However, it is to be noted that the learned Counsel fairly conceded that engagement of the petitioners was never through Employment Exchange, but pursuant to the notification issued by the competent authorities as aforesaid. 8. The primary point to be considered is whether any purpose would be served by causing the representation preferred by the petitioners to be considered by the competent authority, as sought for in the OA. The prayer in the said representation is for regularisation of service of the petitioners. It has been declared, in categorical terms, by the Apex Court _**in 2006**_ O.P(KAT)No.252 of 2017 6 _**(4) SCC Page 1**_ that, no such relief can be granted under any circumstances. Reliance has been placed on the said decision by the Tribunal, and as such, the Tribunal is perfectly justified in declining the said relief as to the regularisation or the right to continue for ever. 9. There is no dispute to the fact that the petitioners were employed only for a period of '89 days'. No provision is pointed out in the Scheme, under which they were recruited; whereby a right is conferred to continue in service even after the expiry of the contract period. Merely for the reason that the petitioners are permitted to continue for 89 days, by itself cannot give any green card or vested right to have their service continued, if it is not desirable according to the employer. With regard to the reliance placed based on _**Piara Singh's**_ case; it was a case where the employer/Government was continuing to engage persons on temporary basis continuously after replacing one set by another set, against sanctioned O.P(KAT)No.252 of 2017 7 posts and this was going on for long. Such a course was deprecated by the Apex Court clearly holding that the vacancies in the regular cadre will have to be filled up by pursuing a proper selection process and that the employer cannot continue to cause the posts to be manned by temporary employees, later substituted by another set. The observation made by the said court and a scope of the verdict is more discernible from 'paragraph 46' of the verdict. It should be read and understood in the light of the facts and discussions given in previous paragraphs. This Court does not find any support from the said judgment so as to promote the cause projected by the petitioners herein. 11. That apart, coming to the case in hand, it is admitted that the engagement of the petitioners was under a particular Scheme. There is no dispute that the petitioners were not appointed against any sanctioned post under the State Government carrying any particular O.P(KAT)No.252 of 2017 8 scale of pay and no regular selection process was conducted. By the passage of time, the requirement got changed and it is for the employer to decide the parameters in this regard. It was accordingly, that Annexure.A5 notification was issued, prescribing the modalities of selection and if the petitioners satisfy the said requirements, it is open for them to have made the application. It is pointed out that the petitioners have not made any application pursuant to Annexure A5. Notwithstanding this, the Tribunal, considering the particular facts and circumstances, sought to protect the right of the petitioners by permitting them to participate in the selection process and a direction was given to give due weightage for the service already rendered by such persons. This being the position Ext.P4 verdict passed by the Tribunal is perfectly within the four walls of law and is not assailable under any circumstances. O.P(KAT)No.252 of 2017 9 The Original Petition is devoid of merit and it is dismissed accordingly. **P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE** **SHIRCY.V JUDGE** smm