Rajeevan K S/O Chindan T.V., Dineshan V.V., and Girishan M S/O Damodaran P.P. v. State of Kerala and Others
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- N. Nagareesh
- Judgment Date
- 2023-03-16
- Court Decision / Holding
- Writ petition disposed of directing the 2nd respondent-Additional Chief Secretary to consider Ext.P10 series representations and to pass speaking orders thereon after issuing notice and hearing the petitioners’ representatives. Orders shall be passed within two months. Till a decision is taken on Ext.P10 series representations, the status quo with regard to continuance of the employees as on date shall be maintained.
- Final Disposition
- Disposed of with directions as above.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- Rajeevan K S/O Chindan T.V.
- Dineshan V.V S/O Damodaran N.A.
- Girishan M S/O Damodaran P.P.
Respondents
- State of Kerala
- Department of Taxes represented by the Additional Chief Secretary, Government of Kerala
- Excise Commissioner, Government of Kerala
- Department of Health and Family Welfare represented by Principal Secretary (Health), Government of Kerala
- Director of Health Services Directorate of Health Services
- District Medical Officer, Kannur District Medical Office (Health)
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Adv Godwin Joseph
Counsels for Respondents
- • Smt.K.G.Sarojini, Government Pleader
Case Synopsis & Summary
This writ petition challenges the alleged illegal termination of three ad-hoc contractual security staff engaged at Vimukthi De-addiction Centre, Payyannur Taluk Hospital in Kannur district. The petitioners allege appointment in 2021–2022 on ad-hoc/contract basis and contend that on 22.10.2022 the third respondent issued Ext.P5 seeking to terminate them and to appoint new ad-hoc staff in their place. The matter had previously seen an interim order (Ext.P8) directing status quo regarding engagement of similarly situated employees. Subsequently, Ext.P6 indicated a proposal to terminate the petitioners and replace them with fresh ad-hoc employees. The petitioners rely on the Supreme Court’s decision in Manish Gupta v. President, Jan Bhagidari Samiti & Ors. (Civil Appeal Nos. 3084–3088 of 2022), which held that ad-hoc employees cannot be replaced by another set of ad-hoc employees and must be replaced only by regularly selected and appointed candidates. They submitted Ext.P10 representations to the 2nd respondent (Additional Chief Secretary) seeking protection. The Government Pleader contends that these appointments are contractual and terminable at will, and contends there is no merit in the petition. The court notes a similar issue in W.P.(C) No.1164 of 2023 and disposes of the petition by directing the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P10 representations, issue speaking orders after notice/hearing, and maintain status quo until a decision is taken, within two months.
Legal Doctrines & Maxims
- Ad-hoc employees cannot be replaced by another set of ad-hoc employees; replacements must be by regularly selected and appointed candidates.
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioners contend that their termination is illegal and unauthorized as they were engaged as ad-hoc security staff in 2021–2022. They rely on the Supreme Court’s Manish Gupta decision (Civil Appeal Nos. 3084–3088 of 2022) to argue that ad-hoc employees cannot be replaced by another set of ad-hoc staff and must be replaced only by regularly selected candidates. They have submitted Ext.P10 representations to the 2nd respondent seeking protection and hearing, contending that termination would cause irreparable hardship. They point to the interim protection of status quo under Ext.P8 and the similar treatment in W.P.(C) No.1164 of 2023, asking the court to extend the same relief by directing consideration of their representations and maintenance of status quo until a decision is rendered, with a prompt hearing.
Contentions of Respondents
The respondents submit that the petitioners’ appointments are purely on a contract basis and can be terminated at any time; the petitioners knowingly accepted contractual employment, so there is no right to continued service. The Government Pleader contends the writ petition is devoid of merit and should be dismissed, asserting that the Vimukthi initiative involves policy decisions and that replacement of ad-hoc staff is permissible when new ad-hoc staff are appointed.
Cited Precedents (1)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Manish Gupta v. President, Jan Bhagidari Samiti & Ors. | Civil Appeal Nos.3084-3088 of 2022 | Positive | The judgment is cited to support the proposition that ad-hoc employees cannot be replaced by another set of ad-hoc employees and must be replaced by regularly selected candidates; the High Court relies on this principle to grant relief extending similar protection. |
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 Rajeevan K S/O Chindan T.V., Dineshan V.V., and Girishan M S/O Damodaran P.P. 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.