High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2019-02-14Disposed of

Satheesan S. and others v. Thiruvananthapuram Regional Co-Operative Milk Producers Union Ltd and The Managing Director, Kerala Milk Marketing Federation Ltd

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 6321 of 2015

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P.V.ASHA
Judgment Date: 2019-02-14
Court Decision / Holding: The writ petition is disposed of. Because there are no vacancies and the petitioners did not meet the required criteria in the regular process (including the 240-day/selection thresholds), the court holds that the petitioners cannot be regularised. However, to mitigate hardship, the court directs that the respondents consider the petitioners’ cases as and when vacancies arise for appointment on temporary/contract/daily-wage basis, rather than granting permanent regularisation.
Final Disposition: Disposed of

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Satheesan S
V. Manoharan
Noushad

Respondents

Thiruvananthapuram Regional Co-Operative Milk Producers Union Ltd represented by its Managing Director, Head Office KSHEERA BHAVAN, Pattom P.O., Thiruvananthapuram - 695 004
The Managing Director, Kerala Milk Marketing Federation Ltd., Thiruvananthapuram - 695 001

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri.T.Rajasekharan Nair

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri.K.Anand (Sr.)
• Sri.M Latha Anand

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition (WP(C).No.6321/2015) by three Last Grade Employees of the Thiruvananthapuram Milma unit challenges their disengagement after working on contract/daily wages and seeks regularisation on the basis of long service and prior walk-in-Interview appointments. The petitioners had initially been engaged through an Employment Exchange on contract terms and continued through periodic extensions up to 2015; they also appeared in a selection process for regular vacancies but did not meet the required threshold. Ext.P14 indicates a directive to consider representations, while Ext.P15 shows the Managing Director rejecting regularisation on the ground that it would contravene the Apex Court’s decision in Umadevi (Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi). The respondents contend that regularisation is not a statutory right, that the petition is not maintainable against a cooperative society, and that regular vacancies were filled after a proper process (22.11.2014 written test; 60 candidates selected). The Court notes the petitioners’ long service but finds no vacancies and that the petitioners did not meet the qualifying criteria, including the 240-day norm. Consequently, while the court acknowledges representations, it disposes of the petition, directing the respondents to consider petitioners’ cases as and when vacancies arise for temporary/contract/daily-wage appointments rather than granting regularisation.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Umadevi doctrine: regularisation is not a statutory right (Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, 2006(4) SCC 1)
Principle that regularisation requires a valid recruitment process and that temporary/contract appointments do not automatically become regular posts
Maintainability concerns about writ petitions against cooperative societies in employment regularisation disputes
Judicial stance on 240-day norm for regularisation (contextual reference to Umadevi and related judgments)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submit that their long service since 2009–2015, combined with initial appointment through Employment Exchange and subsequent contract/daily-wage work, coupled with continuance beyond six months due to vacancies, entitles them to regularisation. They contend the selection attempts and presence in the pool demonstrate eligibility and that denial of regularisation on the basis of Umadevi is justified only if proper recruitment was followed. They point to Exts.P14 and P15 as evidence of the Court’s earlier guidance and the administrative willingness to consider regularisation, arguing that not granting relief arbitrarily violates constitutional expectations of fairness in public employment. They emphasize that their continuous service and qualifications warranted regularisation, and that the absence of vacancies should not bar consideration for future openings.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argue that regularisation is not a statutory right and not the subject of a writ petition against a cooperative society; to grant regularisation would contravene Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1. They highlight that the regular vacancies were filled after due process (22.11.2014 written test; selection of 60 candidates) and that petitioners did not meet minimum marks. They assert there are no annual 240-day periods in their case and such regularisation cannot be granted, citing the need for adherence to recruitment norms and that the petitioners’ initial appointments were not through a proper selection process.

Cited Precedents (7)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi and Others	2006(4) SCC 1	Positive	Used as the governing doctrine that regularisation is not a statutory right and reflects the Supreme Court’s stance on the regularisation of temporary employees.
Association of Milma Officers v. State of Kerala	2015(1) KHC 779	Mentioned Only	Cited in argument to discuss maintainability concerns for writ petitions against a cooperative society; the judgment’s actual holding on regularisation is not adopted in the final disposition.
Chanchal Goyal v. State of Rajasthan	(2003) 3 SCC 485	Positive	Cited as authority supporting the view that regularisation is not a statutory right and that recruitment processes are essential for regular appointments.
Accounts Officer (A&I), APSRTC and Others v. K.V. Ramana	(2007) 2 SCC 324	Positive	Cited to reinforce no automatic regularisation where proper recruitment was not followed.
Yogesh Mahajan v. R.C. Deka	(2018) 3 SCC 218	Positive	Cited to illustrate limits on regularisation in the context of service conditions and recruitment norms.
State of Rajasthan and Others v. Dayalal and Others	(2011) 2 SCC 429	Positive	Cited as authority relating to regularisation and recruitment norms.
WPC.936/2015	WPC 936/2015 (Exhibit P14)	Mentioned Only	Cited in relation to Ext.P14/Judgment cited in the proceedings; not a controlling authority for the final decision.

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 Satheesan S. and others v. Thiruvananthapuram Regional Co-Operative Milk Producers Union Ltd and The Managing Director, Kerala Milk Marketing Federation Ltd 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** **THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 25TH MAGHA, 1940 WP(C).No. 6321 of 2015** ## **PETITIONER/S:** |**1**|**SATHEESAN.S**| |---|---| ||**AGED 43 YEARS,**| ||**S/O. SUKUMARAN, MANJAPARA VEEDU,**| ||**KUDAPPANAKUNNU P.O.,**| ||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 043.**| ||**(WORKING IN THE MARKETING DIVISION,**| ||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DAIRY, TRCMPU LTD.,**| ||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001)**| |**2**|**V.MANOHARAN,**| ||**AGED 43,**| ||**S/O.VELAYUDHAN PARAMBU VILAKATH PUTHEN VEEDU,**| ||**THOTTUMUKKUM PACHALLOOR P.O.,**| ||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 027,**| ||**(WORKING IN THE MARKETING DIVISION,**| ||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DAIRY, TRCMPU LTD.,**| ||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001)**| |**3**|**NOUSHAD, AGED 41 YEARS**| ||**S/O.ABDUL KHADAR,**| ||**MANKUZHIYIL CHARUVILA PUTHENVEEDU,**| ||**PULIYOORKONAM, MADAVOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.**| ||**(WORKING IN THE MARKETING DIVISION,**| ||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DAIRY, TRCMPU LTD.,**| ||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001)**| ||**BY ADV. SRI.T.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR**| **RESPONDENT/S: 1 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REGIONAL CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, HEAD OFFICE KSHEERA BHAVAN, PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004.** **WP(C).No. 6321 of 2015** **2** **2 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA MILK MARKETING FEDERATION LTD. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.** **BY ADVS. SRI.K.ANAND (SR.) SMT.LATHA ANAND** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No. 6321 of 2015** **3** ## **JUDGMENT** **Petitioners had been working as Last Grade Employees under the Thiruvananthapuram Regional CoCo-operative Milk Producers Union Limited ('the Milma' for short). Their initial appointment was through Employment Exchange on contract basis. They continued on the basis of further extension either on contract basis or on daily wages for the period up to 08.02.2015, 20.02.2015 and 18.02.2015, when regular appointment was made. It is stated that petitioners had also appeared for selection and appointment, on regular basis. But they failed to clear the test. When the regular appointees reported for duty, petitioners were disengaged.** **2. This writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondents to engage them and allow them to continue in the respective posts in which they were working. They had earlier approached this Court aggrieved by their disengagement and this Court as per Ext.P14 judgment directed the 2[nd ] respondent herein, to consider their** **WP(C).No. 6321 of 2015** **4** **representations. Ext.P15 order was passed thereafter on 11.02.2015. It is stated that their appointments were purely on contract basis initially for a period of six months through local Employment Exchange by Walk-in-Interview. They were allowed to continue even after expiry of six months since there were vacancies. It is stated that they did not complete 240 days in any year on their appointment on contract basis/daily wage basis. As per Ext.P15 order, the Managing Director rejected their request on the ground that it would be contrary to the judgment of the Apex Court in** _**Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi and Others :**_ **2006(4) SCC 1. It was also stated therein that the respondents had advertised the regular vacancies and thereafter they conducted a written test on 22.11.2014 and candidates, who secured a minimum of 40 marks and above for General Category and 30% and above for SC/ST categories were interviewed; thereafter a select list prepared which was approved by the Board of Directors. 60 candidates were** **WP(C).No. 6321 of 2015** **5** **appointed from that list against permanent vacancies. Consequent to the regular appointment, the temporary hands like petitioners were disengaged. It is stated that since petitioners also appeared in the written test; but failed to secure minimum 40% marks in the written test; they were not considered for the Interview. In these circumstances, the request made by the petitioners for regularisation was rejected.** **3. The contention of the petitioners is that by virtue of their continuous service, on the basis of the appointment through Employment Exchange, they become entitled to be regularised. It is also their case that, as they are having sufficient qualification for appointment to the post, their appointments were to be considered as on the regular basis.** **4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel.** **5. The learned Standing Counsel relying on the judgment of the Larger Bench of this Court reported** **WP(C).No. 6321 of 2015** **6** **in** _**Association of Milma Officers v. State of Kerala**_ **: 2015(1) KHC 779 argued that the 1[st] respondent being a Co-operative Society, this writ petition is not maintainable, as petitioners are seeking regularisation, which is not a statutory right or any action involving any public element. Relying on the judgments of the Apex Court in** _**Chanchal Goyal v. State of Rajastan**_ **: (2003) 3 SCC 485;** _**Accounts Officer (A&I), APSRTC and Others v. K.V.Ramana and Others**_ **: (2007) 2 SCC 324;** _**Yogesh Mahajan v. R.C. Deka**_ **: (2018) 3 SCC 218;** _**State of Rajasthan and Others v. Dayalal and Others**_ **: (2011) 2 SCC 429, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents argued that the petitioners are not entitled to regularisation in order to get regularised. Their initial appointment itself was not in accordance with law or after undergoing any process of selection. It is argued that the appointment of petitioners was on contract basis, though it was through Employment Exchange and that they were not subjected to any process of selection.** **WP(C).No. 6321 of 2015** **7** **6. Having heard the contentions on either side, it is seen that petitioners have rendered service for a considerable period i.e., from 2009 to 2015 in the case of 1[st] petitioner and from 2012 to 2015 in the case of other petitioners.** **As at present, there are no vacancies and petitioners failed to qualify in the regular process of selection. Though the learned Standing Counsel seriously opposed, the only relief that can be granted to petitioners, is to direct the respondents to consider their case as and when there are vacancies for appointment on temporary/contract/ daily wages.** **Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed** **of.** **Sd/P.V.ASHA JUDGE** WW **WP(C).No. 6321 of 2015** **8** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 05/09/2012 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 04/10/2013 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 05/04/2014, ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SALARY SLIP FOR THE OCTOBER 2014 ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.** **EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT WITH REGARDS TO THE SERVICE OF THE 2ND PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT WITH REGARDS TO THE SERVICE OF THE 2ND PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDERS DATED 05/11/2013 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT WITH REGARDS TO THE SERVICE OF THE 2ND PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SALARY SLIP FOR THE MONTH OF NOVEMBER 2014 ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDERS DATED 21/11/2012 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT WITH REGARDS TO THE SERVICE OF THE 3RD PETITIONER.** **EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SALARY SLIP FOR THE MONTH OF OCTOBER ISSUED TO THE 3RD PETITIONER.** **EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT AND 2ND RESPONDENT.** **WP(C).No. 6321 of 2015** **9** |**EXHIBIT P12**|**A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION**| |---|---| ||**SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE**| ||**1ST RESPONDENT AND 2ND RESPONDENT.**| |**EXHIBIT P13**|**A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION**| ||**SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER BEFORE THE**| ||**1ST RESPONDENT AND 2ND RESPONDENT.**| |**EXHIBIT P14**|**A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN**| ||**WPC.NO.936/2015 PASSED BY THIS COURT.**| |**EXHIBIT P15**|**A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED**| ||**11/02/2015 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO**| ||**THE PETITIONER.**| |**EXHIBIT P16**|**A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE DAILY BUSINESS**| ||**STATEMENT OF THE SUPER SHOP AT PATTOM,**| ||**DATED 05/04/2014, ON WHICH THE 1ST**| ||**PETITIONER HAD WORKED UNDER THE 1ST**| ||**RESPONDENT.**| |**EXHIBIT P17**|**A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE DAILY BUSINESS**| ||**STATEMENT OF THE SUPER SHOP AT PATTOM,**| ||**DATED 06/04/2014, ON WHICH THE 1ST**| ||**PETITIONER HAD WORKED UNDER THE 1ST**| ||**RESPONDENT.**| |**EXHIBIT P18**|**A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE DAILY BUSINESS**| ||**STATEMENT OF THE SUPER SHOP AT PATTOM,**| ||**DATED 07/04/2014, ON WHICH THE 1ST**| ||**PETITIONER HAD WORKED UNDER THE 1ST**| ||**RESPONDENT.**|