Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeDismissed

Shaji Varghese & Others v. State of Kerala and Kerala Water Authority & Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 31200 of 2017 (Y)
Neutral Citation:W.P.(C).No.31200 of 2017 (Y)

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • P. V. ASHA
Judgment Date
2017-11-23
Court Decision / Holding
Writ petition is dismissed. Petitioners have no right to continuation in posts and may pursue other legal remedies.
Final Disposition
Dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Shaji Varghese
  • Santhosh S.
  • Sanoj Kumar V.
  • Rajendran K.
  • Rajeev A.K.
  • Raveendran P.
  • Shibu Vincent
  • Jayakumar
  • Shaji Babu
  • Krishnakumar D.
  • Sunilkumar M.S.
  • Sudheesh S.
  • Sibichan Antony
  • Dileepkumar P.
  • George K.P.
  • Mathew K. Antony
  • Pramodkumar P.

Respondents

  • State of Kerala
  • The Kerala Water Authority
  • Managing Director, KWA
  • Assistant Executive Engineers (various pump houses)
  • R1 to R12 (as per list)

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Sri Kaleeswaram Raj
  • • Sri Varun C. Vijay Kumar
  • • A. Aruna Kum
  • • Thulasi K. Raj

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Sri Nisha Bose (Senior Government Pleader)
  • • Sri Millu Dandapani, SC

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petition, WP(C).No.31200 of 2017 (Y), challenges the Kerala Water Authority’s practice of engaging contract workers as Pump Operators, Shift Assistants and Operators across Chengannur and nearby pump houses. Petitioners assert that a substantial cohort has been continuously engaged since 1996–2012, through various contractors and in some cases via walk-in/interviews, with many continuing as contract employees funded by contractors. They submitted log books and experience certificates to show long-standing service, claiming they should be protected from being replaced by fresh hires through Employment Exchange for a 179-day duration under Rule 9(a)(1) of the Kerala State & Subordinate Service Rules. Respondents counter that there is no employer–employee relationship; pump houses operate through contractors under open tenders who supply workers as per contractual terms, and after expiry of each contract, a new contractor is engaged. They emphasize that appointments to KWA posts are to be made through the Public Service Commission (PSC) and, in emergencies, via Employment Exchange for 179 days only; no provision contemplates continuous engagement of contract workers. The court examined the rules and Kerala Division Bench precedents (Latha, Vinod V) distinguishing Piara Singh’s principle, concluding that the Kerala scheme precludes continued temporary employment through contractors. The petition was dismissed, with a note that petitioners may seek other remedies.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala State & Subordinate Service Rules, Rule 9(a)(1) (and referenced Rule 9 a (1))

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Equality of opportunity in public employment
  • Principle of equal opportunity in employment under the State

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners argue that they were engaged through contractors for public pumping operations since 1996–2012, often for 179-day spells under Rule 9(a)(1) and, in many cases, via walk-in processes. They contend continuous service by contractors; that replacing them via Employment Exchange would violate their right to continued service and contravene the statutory scheme under Rule 9(a)(1). They rely on earlier Supreme Court and Kerala decisions recognizing protection against arbitrary displacement of temporary workers; they emphasize that the KWA’s practice of contracting out work undermines statutory norms and the principle of fair opportunity in public employment.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents maintain there is no master–servant relationship with petitioners; pump houses are operated by contractors who supply workers per contract; public posts must be filled through PSC, with emergency appointments only through 179-day Employment Exchange sponsorship; upon expiry of a contract, a new contractor is engaged; R1–R12 are Assistant Executive Engineers under the KWA. They argue the statutory rules do not permit continuous temporary appointments via contractors and that replacing petitioners with new contract workers is lawful under the Kerala formation of administrative rules; reliance on Piara Singh is addressed via Kerala’s Rule 9(a)(1), which negates the permanence of temporary appointments under contracts.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
State of Haryana and others v. Piara Singh and others1992 (4) SCC 118DistinguishedThe Kerala court distinguished Piara Singh’s general principle due to the Kerala-specific Rule 9(a)(1), which prohibits even re-appointment of a temporary hand beyond 179 days.
C. Latha v. State1993 (2) KLJ 497PositiveKerala Division Bench repelled the claim of temporary hands to continue, supporting the stance that Piara Singh cannot be universally applied.
Vinod V State of Kerala1998(1)KLT 607PositiveSimilar reasoning as Latha; the court recognized Kerala rules over broad Piara Singh application.
Dr Pramod Anandrao Pathre v. State of Maharashtra2007 (109) Bombay LR 962Mentioned OnlyCited among authorities but not central to the decisive reasoning in the Kerala judgment.

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 Shaji Varghese & Others v. State of Kerala and Kerala Water Authority & 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 SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA** **THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017/2ND AGRAHAYANA, 1939** ## **WP(C).No. 31200 of 2017 (Y)** ## **----------------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S):** ## **-------------** ## **1. SHAJI VARGHESE,** **PUMP OPERATOR, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, OFFICE PLANT, KIZHAKKENADA, CHENGANNUR,, ALAPPUZHA -689121.** ## **2. SANTHOSH S.,** **SHIFT ASSISTANT, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, OFFICE PLANT, KIZHAKKENADA, CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA -689121.** **3. SANOJ KUMAR V., OPERATOR, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, MITHREPUZHA RAW WATER, CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA -689121.** ## **4. RAJENDRAN K.,** - **PUMP OPERATOR, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY OFFICE, KOLAMUKKAM,CHENGANNUR,ALAPPUZHA -689121.** ## **5. RAJEEV A.K.,** - **OPERATOR, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, MALAYIL PLANT, CHENGANNUR,ALAPPUZHA -689121.** **6. RAVEENDRAN P.,** - **SHIFT ASSISTANT, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, MALAYIL PLANT, ANGADIKKAL, CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA -689121.** ## **7. SHIBU VINCENT,** - **SHIFT ASSISTANT, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, MALAYIL PLANT, ANGADIKKAL, CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA -689121.** **8. JAYAKUMAR, OPERATOR, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY , KOLAMUKKAM RAW WATER,, CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA -689121.** **9. SHAJI BABU, OPERATOR, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY , MITHRAPUZHA RAW WATER, CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA -689121.** ## **WP(C).No. 31200 of 2017 (Y)** ## **----------------------------** ## **10.KRISHNAKUMAR D.,** - **OPERATOR, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY , PANDANAD PUMP HOUSE, MANNAR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.689122** - **11.SUNILKUMAR M.S., OPERATOR, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY , NOOTTAVANPARA, ALAPPUZHA.689006** - **12.SUDHEESH S., OPERATOR, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY , KARALAKAMPADOM, THAMBAKACHUVADU, ALAPPUZHA.68806** - **13.SIBICHAN ANTONY, OPERATOR, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY , KARALAKAMPADOM, KOMALAPURAM, ALAPPUZHA-688006.** - **14.DILEEPKUMAR P.,** - **OPERATOR, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY , KOMALAPURAM, VELIYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA.688006** - **15.GEORGE K.P., OPERATOR, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY , KATTOOR PUMP HOUSE. ALAPPUZHA.688006** - **16.MATHEW K.ANTONY, OPERATOR, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY , SARVODAYAPURAM PUMP HOUSE, KARALAKAMPADOM, ALAPPUZHA.688006** - **17.PRAMODKUMAR P., OPERATOR, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY , SARVODAYAPURAM PUMP HOUSE, KARALAKAMPADOM, ALAPPUZHA.** **BY ADVS.SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ SRI.VARUN C.VIJAY KUM.A.ARUNA KUM.THULASI K. RAJ** **RESPONDENT(S):** - **--------------** ## **1. STATE OF KERALA,** - **REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.** **2. THE KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, JALA BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033.** **3. MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, JALA BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033.** **WP(C).No. 31200 of 2017 (Y) ----------------------------** **4. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY,OFFICE PLANT, KIZHAKKENADA, CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA-689121.** **5. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, MITHREPUZHA RAW WATER, CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA-689121.** **6. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, KOLAMUKKAM, CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA-689121.** **7. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, MALAYIL PLANT, CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA-689121.** **8. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, PANDANAD PUMP HOUSE, MANNAR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.689122** **9. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, NOOTTAVANPARA, ALAPPUZHA.689121.** - **10.THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, KARALAKAMPADOM, KOMALAPURAM, ALAPPUZHA-688006.** - **11.THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, KATTOOR PUMP HOUSE, ALAPPUZHA.689121** - **12.THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, SARVODAYAPURAM PUMP HOUSE, KARALAKAMPADOM, ALAPPUZHA.689121.** - **R1 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT NISHA BOSE R2 TO R12 BY ADVS. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI, SC** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-11-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **K.V.** **WP(C).No. 31200 of 2017 (Y) ----------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LOG BOOK PERTAINING TO THE 1ST PETITIONER. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------R1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT ISSUED TO THE GOVERNMENT CONTRACTOR FOR THE CHENGANNOOR SECTION WHICH IS CURRENTLY IN EFFECT.** **/TRUE COPY/ K.V. P.S.TO JUDGE** ## **P.V.ASHA J.** ## **------------------------------------** ## **W.P.(C).No.31200 of 2017** **-------------------------------------** Dated this the 23[rd] day of November, 2017 ## **J U D G M E N T** Petitioners are working as Pump Operators/Shift Assistant/Operators in the Kerala Water Authority, on engagement through contractors. According to them, 5 of them were initially appointed through Employment Exchange for a period of 179 days, in the years 2002, 2003, 2006 and 2007. Others were appointed on the basis of walk in-interview in 1996, 2003, 2004,2005, 2006, 2008 and 2012. They are continuing as contract employees under contractors from time to time and they are paid by the contractors. 2. Petitioners have produced the log book as well as their experience certificates, asserting that they are continuing from 2002, 2006, 2007, 2003 etc. The 10[th] petitioner is continuing from 1996 onwards. However, it is admitted that their engagement is W.P.(C).No.31200 of 2017 2 being continued through contractors. Petitioners have filed this writ petition complaining that the respondents are taking steps to induct fresh hands in their place through employment exchange. According to them, they are not liable to be replaced. 3. Rules do not provide for any appointment through contractors. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents 1 and 2, it is stated that the petitioners are persons, who were supplied by contractors. It is stated that the Kerala Water Authority conducts its affairs at various pump houses through contractors. The pump houses are allotted to contractors after awarding contract on open tender and such contractors supply employees as per the terms in the contract for stipulated number of days. On expiry of the contract period of one contractor, fresh contract would be entered into. It is stated that there is no employer-employee relationship between the respondents and the petitioners. And that petitioners were never on any continuous employment. W.P.(C).No.31200 of 2017 3 4. The appointment to the posts of Pump Operators/Shift Assistant/Operators, are governed by the statutory rules under the Kerala Water Authority. Rules do not provide for award of work of the pump operators to contractors and to get the service of the pump operators or operators on contract. From Ext.R1(a) agreement, it is seen that the respondents have been in gross violation of the statutory rules, entering into contracts with outsiders to supply qualified hands, when there are legally recognized agencies like employment exchange and Public Service Commission available for this purpose. It is not understood under what authority the Kerala Water Authority could resort to such illegal methods for public employment. 5. As per the rules, appointments to the posts of Operators/Pump Operators and other posts in the Kerala Water Authority are to be made through Public Service Commission. In cases of emergency, appointments can be made under Rule 9 (a) (1) of W.P.(C).No.31200 of 2017 4 Kerala State & Subordinate Service Rules (for short 'the rules'). Appointments under Rule 9 a (1) of the rules are to be made through Employment Exchange for a period of 179 days. On expiry of 179 days, the employer has to send a requisition to the Employment Exchange, when the Employment Exchange will sponsor a fresh list of qualified hands. The provisions contained in Rule 9 (a)(i) do not provide even for a re-appointment to the same candidate after the period of 179 days. The scheme of the rules, envisages maximum opportunities to the unemployed qualified hands to get employment turn by turn on rotation, and does not envisage continuous or long term for appointments on temporary basis in order to see that the public employment is distributed equally among qualified hands at least for a short period consistent with the principles of equality and equality of opportunity in matters relating to employment under the State. Even the provisional appointment is provided for, only in the absence of W.P.(C).No.31200 of 2017 5 any live ranked list of the Public Service Commission. 6. It is not understood why the Kerala Water Authority, enters into contracts in order to maintain its pumps and thereby resorts to the novel methods of appointment contrary to law, by entering into the contract for supply of pump operators and the like, when there are sanctioned posts in which appointments can be made either on regular basis or on temporary basis in emergency in accordance with the rules in force. 7. The petitioners filed this writ petition pointing out that the respondents are going to replace them by appointment through Employment Exchange. According to them, when they are continuing for the last several years, they have to be allowed to continue and any replacement by another set of provisional employees would be contrary to the judgment of the Apex Court in **State of Haryana and others v. Piara Singh and others** [1992 (4) SCC 118] W.P.(C).No.31200 of 2017 6 and **Dr Pramod Anandrao Pathre v. State of Maharashtra** (2007) (109) Bombay LR 962. 8. The division bench of this Court had in **C. Latha v. State (1993 (2) KLJ 497) and in Vinod V State of Kerala** [1998(1)KLT 607] considered the applicability of the judgment of the Supreme Court in **Piara Singh** 's case with respect to the scheme of the rules in Kerala and repelled the claim of temporary hands to continue. After elaborately considering the rules which prevail in Kerala, the Division Bench of this Court had held that the dictum laid down in **Piare Singh** 's case cannot be applied, in view of specific provisions contained in rule 9(a) (1) which prohibits even a re-appointment of a temporary hand on completion of 179 days. 9. In this case, respondents though were depending on contractors, have stated that they are taking steps to make appointments through employment exchange, which is the method of appointment known to law. Petitioners, who were engaged by contractors W.P.(C).No.31200 of 2017 7 cannot have any claim to continue in any post under the respondents. Petitioners do not have any right to continue as claimed by them. Therefore, the writ petition fails and dismissed. This will not prevent the petitioners from resorting to any other legal remedy, if available. Sd/- **P.V.ASHA, JUDGE.** AS