High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2023-08-14Writ petition disposed of in part with directio...

Rasiya C.K. v. Director, Directorate of Social Justice and Child Development Project Officer, Chandakunnu, Nilambur, Malappuram

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) No. 14433 of 2022

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Devan Ramachandran
Judgment Date: 2023-08-14
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition disposed of in part, granting liberty to the petitioner to apply in the new recruitment process within two weeks of receipt of a copy of the judgment. If filed within that period, the application will be treated as timely, with credit for prior service and necessary opportunities afforded in the interview and other components of the selection process. If the petitioner is found eligible for a future vacancy, she shall be offered the same without undue delay.
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed of in part with directions for a future recruitment process and credit for prior service; liberty to apply within two weeks and, if eligible, appointment to be offered without delay.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Rasiya C.K.

Respondents

The Director, Directorate of Social Justice, Vikás Bhavan, Thiruvananthapuram
The Child Development Project Officer, Chandakunnu, Nilambur, Malappuram
Smt. Mable C. Kurian (Sr. GP)

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv K.V. Gopinathan Nair

Counsels for Respondents

• Smt. Mable C. Kurian (Sr. GP)

Case Synopsis & Summary

Rasiya C.K., an Anganwadi Worker stationed at Padikkunnu Mini Anganwadi Centre No.96, approached this Court challenging a 2022 order denying her regularization after more than ten years of service on a provisional engagement. She had relied on Ext.P2, a judgment directing the authorities to consider her claim under the applicable Government Orders, and contends that she has continuously served for more than ten years and that her prior service should be regularized. The second respondent issued Ext.R2(h) dated 23.04.2022, conceding that she had about 2029 days of service but denying regularization and stating that the period would be credited only when a fresh appointment process, including an interview, is undertaken. The petitioner contends that she falls within the Umadevi doctrine laid down by the Supreme Court, specifically that regularization can be a one-time measure and that there is no vested right to regularization, and that her continuous service warrants relief. The respondents insist there is no vested right to regularization, as she was appointed provisionally and no regular appointment process had been pursued from 2010 to 2021; the process is underway and will include an interview. The court held that regularization cannot be granted as a matter of right but granted liberty to apply in the upcoming recruitment process within two weeks, with credit for prior service and, if eligible for a vacancy, an appointment without undue delay.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Umadevi doctrine (Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi) that regularization is a one-time measure and that there is no vested right to regularization in public employment.
Credit for prior service in fresh recruitment processes.
Continuous service as a criterion in consideration of regularization under the Umadevi framework.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that she has served continuously for over ten years in Anganwadi work on a provisional basis and is entitled to regularization under the Supreme Court’s Umadevi doctrine, which recognizes limited regularization as a one-time measure and permits credit for prior service in future recruitment. She relies on Ext.P2 directing consideration of her claim under relevant Government Orders and disputes Ext.R2(h)’s denial, arguing that the actual service period should be counted and that she should be allowed to work without interruption pending regular appointment.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents submit that there is no vested right to regularization and that provisional appointments cannot vest such a right; regularization can be considered only in the course of a future recruitment, for which the process including interviews has already begun, and credit for days worked will be given in that process. They argued that a continuous ten-year service criterion should be evaluated in light of tenable rules, and that the petitioner, who had also contested elections, cannot claim automatic regularization.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi	(2006) 4 SCC 1	Positive	The court relies on the Umadevi doctrine that regularization is a one-time measure and does not confer a general vested right, while allowing credit for prior service in future recruitment.

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 Rasiya C.K. v. Director, Directorate of Social Justice and Child Development Project Officer, Chandakunnu, Nilambur, Malappuram 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 DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN ``` ``` MONDAY, THE 14[TH] DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 23RD SRAVANA, 1945 ``` ## `WP(C) NO. 14433 OF 2022` ## `PETITIONER:` ``` RASIYA.C.K., W/O. ABDUL NAZER, CHENNAM KULANGARA HOUSE, RAMANKUTHU, NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM ``` ``` (ANGANAWADI WORKER PADIKUNNU MINIANGANWADI CENTRE NO: 96) ``` ``` BY ADV K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR ``` ## `RESPONDENTS:` ``` 1THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF SOCIAL JUSTICE, VIKAS BHAVAN, VTH FLOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033. ``` ``` 2THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER, CHILD DEVELOPMENT OFFICE, CHANDAKUNNU, NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM - 679 342. ``` ``` SMT.MABLE C.KURIAN [SR.GP] ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 14433 OF 2022 ``` ``` -2- ``` ## `JUDGMENT` ``` The petitioner says that she had been working as ``` ``` an Anganwadi Helper on temporary basis in ‘Padikkunnu Mini Anganwadi No.96’. She alleges that, even though she had completed more than ten ``` ``` years of such service, her request for ``` ``` regularization has been turned down, but without citing any cogent reason. ``` ``` 2.The petitioner submits that she, therefore, ``` ``` approached this Court and obtained Ext.P2 judgment, ``` ``` whereby, her claim was directed to be considered, ``` ``` taking into account the applicable Government Order; but alleges that, in ostensible obedience to the said directions, the 2[nd] respondent has now issued an order dated 23.04.2022 – a copy of which is on ``` ``` record as Ext.R2(h) – wherein, though it is conceded ``` ``` that she has worked for 2029 days, she cannot be regularized and that said period would be given credit as and when the processes for a fresh ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 14433 OF 2022 ``` ``` -3- ``` ``` appointment, through an interview, is taken forward. ``` ``` 3.The petitioner contends that the factual assertions in Ext.R2(h) are untrue and that she had been in continuous service for more than ten years, thus being entitled to be regularized, under the umbra of the declarations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court inSecretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi [(2006) 4 SCC]. She thus prays that respondents be directed to regularize her service and permit her to work without break. ``` ``` 4.In response to the afore submissions of the ``` `petitioner` , `as made by her learned counsel – Sri.K.V.Gopinathan Nair, the learned Senior Government Pleader – Smt.Mable C.Kurian, submitted that petitioner does not obtain any vested right to be regularized in service, particularly when she herself admits that she was appointed only on a provisional basis and not permanently. She explained that, therefore, her claim would also be considered when regular appointments are made, which process is underway and which includes an interview; and that` ``` WP(C) NO. 14433 OF 2022 ``` ``` -4- ``` ``` she would then be given necessary credit for the ``` ``` number of days she had earlier worked. ``` ``` 5.The learned Senior Government Pleader ``` ``` concluded her submissions, saying that, since no process for regular appointment had been pursued by the competent Authority from 2010 to 2021, the petitioner’s claim could not be considered; but that, if she is interested, she can apply in the next ensuing recruitment process, which she submitted has already begun. She thus prayed that this writ petition be dismissed. ``` ``` 6.In reply, the learned counsel for the ``` ``` petitioner, conceded that his client was appointed on temporary basis, but after following due procedure. He asserted that, therefore, his client is entitled to be regularized in service; but that, if it is to be found to the contrary by this Court, then directions may be issued to the respondents to make sure that her actual service and number of days served in the post are computed properly and she be given necessary credit for the same. He added that, ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 14433 OF 2022 ``` ``` -5- ``` ``` in fact, his client had applied for being recruited substantively in the year 2010, as also in the year 2020; and that she has documents available with her in substantiation. ``` ``` 7.When one considers and evaluates the afore rival positions, it is without doubt that a claim for regularization can be edificed only if the petitioner is able to show that she falls within the sweep of the declarations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph 53 of Umadevi (supra). This is a one time measure and the respondents take the stand that such benefits can be given only to a person who has been in continuous service for ten years. According to them, she has served a total of only about 2029 days in different periods, which is not continuous; and that, in any event, she is no longer in service, since she stood for elections to be the Councillor of a Local Self Government Institutions. ``` ``` 8.Since the facts are not controverted and are, in fact, admitted - except for the number of days actually worked by the petitioner - I am of the ``` ## `WP(C) NO. 14433 OF 2022` ``` -6- ``` ``` view that her plea for regularization cannot be acceded to. However, if she applies for a regular appointment, certainly, the number of days worked by her earlier as an Anganwadi Worker will be given credit to as per the applicable Rules and Regulations. ``` ``` Resultantly, I order this writ petition, ``` ``` granting liberty to the petitioner to make an application in the new process of recruitment; and if this is done within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, same shall be accepted as having been preferred in time and further processes taken forward on its basis. ``` ``` Needless to say, requisite credit for the petitioner's earlier service shall be offered to her, and she will also be given necessary ``` ``` opportunities, as are warranted, in the interview and such other components of the selection ``` ``` processes. ``` ``` It also goes without saying that, if the ``` ``` petitioneris found eligible to be appointed to a ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 14433 OF 2022 ``` ``` -7- vacancy in future, she shall be offered the same without any avoidable delay. ``` ``` Sd/- ``` ``` DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN ``` ``` akv ``` ``` JUDGE ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 14433 OF 2022 ``` ``` -8- ``` ## `APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14433/2022` ## `PETITIONER EXHIBITS` - `EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE AGENDA DATED 21.1.2021.` - `EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE COUNCILLOR E DATED 21.1.2021.` - `EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE G.O. (M.S)NO. 81/2015 ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL JUSTICE DATED 30.12.2015.` - `EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND OTHERS DATED 18.8.2021.` - `EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO. 24734 OF 2 DATED 10.11.2021.` - `EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER FOR COMPLIANCE OF THE JUDGMENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT 12.3.2022.` - `EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 7.2.2022.` - `EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 8.2.2022.` - `EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF CONTEMPT OF COURT NOTICE TO 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 1.4.2022.` ## `RESPONDENT EXHIBITS` ``` EXHIBIT R2 (A)TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER N. 237/2006 DATED 01.06.2006 ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 14433 OF 2022 ``` ``` -9- ``` |`EXHIBIT R2`|`(B)`|`TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.`| |---|---|---| |||`ICDS/B4/24506/18 DATED 23.02.2021`| |`EXHIBIT R2`|`(C)`|`TRUE COPY OF THE GO(MS) NO.81/2015/SJD`| |||`DATED 30.12.2015`| |`EXHIBIT R2`|`(D)`|`TRUE COPY OF THE GO (MS) NO.`| |||`71/2014(SWD) DATED 14.08.2014`| |`EXHIBIT R2`|`(E)`|`TRUE COPY OF THE GO (MS) NO. 80/2015`| |||`DATED 29.12.2015`| |`EXHIBIT R2`|`(F)`|`TRUE COPY OF THE GO (MS) NO. 254/2018`| |||`DATED 30.04.2018`| |`EXHIBIT R2`|`(G)`|`TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.`| |||`B2/406/2019/SJD DATED 22.02.2020`| |`EXHIBIT R2`|`(H)`|`TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.`| |||`ICDS/NBR-276/2021 DATED 23.04.20222OF`| |||`THRE CDPO, NILAMBUR`| |`EXHIBIT R2`|`(I)`|`TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO. SWD-`| |||`B2/406/2019/SWD DATED 22.02.2020`|