High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2017-10-06Writ petition disposed of with directions for t...

Sreelal Sreedharan v. State of Kerala & Ors.

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 31847 of 2017 (E)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P.V.ASHA
Judgment Date: 2017-10-06
Court Decision / Holding: This writ petition is disposed of as above with a direction that, if the 2nd respondent requires personnel in the said posts during the interim period before fresh appointments, the petitioners may be engaged, until fresh appointments are made pursuant to Ext.P21 or through the Employment Exchange.
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed of with directions for temporary engagement of petitioners until fresh appointments are made under Ext.P21 or via the Employment Exchange.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

SREELAL SREEDHARAN
VISHNU G.NATH
GIREESH G.
MANOJ R.
ADARSH KUMAR VIJAY NAIR
PRAVEEN K.P.

Respondents

STATE OF KERALA, represented by Secretary to Government, Department of Industries, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram
KERALA MINERALS AND METALS LTD., Chavara, Sankaramangalam, Kollam-691583
GENERAL MANAGER (P&A/EDP), KERALA MINERALS AND METALS LTD., Chavara, Sankaramangalam, Kollam-691583

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

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

Counsels for Respondents

• Latha Anand, SC

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition challenges Ext.P21, a notification issued by the 2nd respondent-Kerala Minerals and Metals Ltd. (KMML) inviting applications for appointment to posts in the TSP Unit, KMML, on which six petitioners were intermittently engaged since 2015 on contractual terms. The petitioners—Sreelal Sreedharan, Vishnu G. Nath, Gireesh G., Manoj R., Adarsh Kumar Vijay Nair, and Praveen K.P.—were initially employed for one-year terms through an Employment Exchange and subsequently re-engaged for successive spells with breaks, with the most recent engagements set to expire in October 2017. They contend that, given their ongoing deployment on contract, they should not be displaced by new appointees and challenge Ext.P21 on the ground that it undermines their interim status and violates principles of equity. The respondents argue that contractual appointments are for limited periods and do not vest a right to continuation; they have already forwarded a requisition to the Employment Exchange to fill posts with eligible candidates. The High Court holds that there is no irregularity in the process, reiterating the Umadevi principle that temporary/contractual appointments must not subvert constitutional guarantees and that appointments must follow the rule of law and equality in public employment. However, to avoid disruption while fresh appointments are made, the petitioners may be engaged temporarily. The petition is disposed of with directions to engage the petitioners until new appointments are made under Ext.P21 or via the Employment Exchange.

Provisions of Law Cited

Article 14 of the Constitution of IndiaArticle 16 of the Constitution of India

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Rule of law as a core feature of the Constitution
Equality in public employment as a basic feature of the Constitution
Contractual appointments end with the contract; no right to continued service unless provided by law or rules
Public employment must follow constitutional scheme and competitive process (Umadevi principle)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend that they have been continuously engaged on contract in the TSP Unit since 2015, often with renewals and short breaks, and their term is due to expire in October 2017. They argue that Ext.P21, inviting fresh appointment from priority categories for the same posts, would displace them from service despite their ongoing engagement and dependence on the work, and thus violate principles of equity and the constitutional scheme for public employment. They seek retention in their posts until a final, lawful appointment can be made, or at least protection from immediate displacement pending the completion of the recruitment process.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents maintain that the petitioners were engaged only on a contractual basis for a limited period, and there is no legal right to continue beyond the contract. They note that a requisition was sent to the Employment Exchange to procure eligible candidates and that fresh appointments should proceed in accordance with due process and the constitutionally mandated framework for public employment. They cite Umadevi to argue that the rule of law and equality require adherence to competitive recruitment and that contractual engagements cannot undermine or bypass this framework.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
State of Karnataka v. Umadevi	[(2006) 4 SCC 1]	Positive	Cited as the decisive authority for the principle that temporary/contractual engagements do not confer a legal right to continued employment and that appointments must follow the constitutional framework, with a focus on equality and the rule of law in public employment.

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 Sreelal Sreedharan v. State of Kerala & Ors. 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** ## **FRIDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017/14TH ASWINA, 1939** ## **WP(C).No. 31847 of 2017 (E)** ## **----------------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S):** ## **-------------** **1. SREELAL SREEDHARAN, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.B.SREEDHARAN, ELECTRICAL ENGINEER, T.S.P. UNIT, KMML, CHAVARA, SANKARAMANGALAM, KOLLAM-691583.** ## **2. VISHNU G.NATH,** - **AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.GOPINATHAN PILLAI, ELECTRICAL TECHNICIAN, T.S.P. UNIT, KMML, CHAVARA, SANKARAMANGALAM, KOLLAM-691583.** ## **3. GIREESH G.,** - **AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.GOPALAKRISHNAN POTTY, ELECTRICAL ENGINEER, T.S.P. UNIT, KMML, CHAVARA, SANKARAMANGALAM, KOLLAM-691583.** **4. MANOJ R.,** - **AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.RAGHAVAN K., ELECTRICAL TECHNICIAN, T.S.P. UNIT, KMML, CHAVARA, SANKARAMANGALAM, KOLLAM-691583.** ## **5. ADARSH KUMAR VIJAY NAIR,** - **AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.G.VIJAY KUMAR NAIR, PROCESS ENGINEER, T.S.P. UNIT, KMML, CHAVARA, SANKARAMANGALAM, KOLLAM-691583.** **6. PRAVEEN K.P.,** - **AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.PRABHAKARAN, MECHANICAL ENGINEER, T.S.P. UNIT, KMML, CHAVARA, SANKARAMANGALAM, KOLLAM-691583.** **BY ADVS.SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ KUM.A.ARUNA KUM.THULASI K. RAJ SRI.VARUN C.VIJAY** ## **WP(C).No. 31847 of 2017 (E)** ## **----------------------------** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** ## **--------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.** **2. KERALA MINERALS AND METALS LTD., CHAVARA, SANKARAMANGALAM, KOLLAM-691583, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER.** **3. GENERAL MANAGER (P&A/EDP), KERALA MINERALS AND METALS LTD., CHAVARA, SANKARAMANGALAM,KOLLAM-691583.** - **R1 BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BIJOY CHANDRAN R2-R3 BY ADV. SMT.LATHA ANAND, SC,** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-10-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **sdr/-** ## **WP(C).No. 31847 of 2017 (E)** **----------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **----------------** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** ## **--------------------------------------** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 18.3.2015 OF THE 1ST PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELIEVING ORDER DATED 7.4.2016 OF THE 1ST PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RELIEVING ORDER DATED 12.1.2017 OF THE 1ST PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER RE-ENGAGING THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 13.1.2017.** - **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.4.2017.** - **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF RE-ENGAGEMENT DATED 25.4.2017 OF THE 1ST PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF APPOINTMENT DATED 18.3.2015.** - **EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER RE-ENGAGING THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 7.10.2016.** - **EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.4.2017.** - **EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE RE-ENGAGEMENT ORDER DATED 11.7.2017.** - **EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 3.10.2016 RE-ENGAGING THE 3RD PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 4.1.2017.** - **EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 7.7.2017.** - **EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 1.4.2015 OF THE 4TH PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10.10.2016.** - **EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.7.2017 OF THE 4TH PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.1.2015.** **WP(C).No. 31847 of 2017 (E) ----------------------------** **EXHIBIT P18 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.7.2017. EXHIBIT P19 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.4.2017. EXHIBIT P20 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.7.2017. EXHIBIT P21 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 28.9.2017. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL --------------------------------------** **/TRUE COPY/** **PA TO JUDGE** **sdr/-** ## **P.V.ASHA, J.** -------------------------------------------W.P.(C).No.31847 of 2017 -------------------------------------------------Dated this the 6[th] day of October, 2017. ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioners are employed on contract basis as Electrical Engineer, Electrical Technician, Process Engineer and Mechanical Engineer in the TSP Unit of the 2[nd] respondent. Their initial appointment was in March/April, 2015 for a period of one year through Employment Exchange. On expiry of the term of their initial appointment, they were again engaged, based on subsequent orders issued, for different spells with breaks in between. The petitioners pointed out that at present, the term of their engagements is due to expire on various dates druing October 2017. While claiming retention in service in the respective posts, petitioners are challenging Ext.P21 notification, by which the 2[nd] respondent has invited applications for appointment to the very same posts, which they are holding, from among priority categories. The notification would also show that the 2[nd] respondent has already sent a requisition to the Employment Exchange for making appointments to the said posts. 2. The contention of the petitioners is that when they are already on contract employment, they should not be displaced by other contract employees. 3. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the 2[nd] W.P.(C).No.31847 of 2017 2 respondent submits that the appointments of the petitioners were on contract basis for a limited period and on expiry of the said contract period, the petitioners cannot have any right to continue. It is also pointed out that they have already sent a requisition to the Employment Exchange and the Employment Exchange would sent another set of eligible candidates, who are awaiting for appointment. 4. In the above circumstances, I do not find any irregularity in the process adopted by the respondents. The petitioners who are appointed on contract basis cannot have any claim to continue in service, once the contract period expires. At the same time another set of unemployed hands awaiting appointment after registering with the Employment Exchange will also get opportunity to serve the 2[nd] respondent. In this context it is relevant to note the following from the judgment of the honourable Apex Court in _**State**_ ## _**of Karnataka v. Umadevi [(2006) 4 SCC 1]**_ : _**“ 13.** What is sought to be pitted against this approach, is the so-called equity arising out of giving of temporary employment or engagement on daily wages and the continuance of such persons in the engaged work for a certain length of time. Such considerations can have only a limited role to play, when every qualified citizen has a right to apply for appointment, the adoption of the concept of rule of law and the scheme of the Constitution for appointment to posts. It cannot also be forgotten that it is not the role of the courts to ignore, encourage or approve appointments made or engagements given outside the constitutional scheme. In_ W.P.(C).No.31847 of 2017 3 _effect, orders based on such sentiments or approach would result in perpetuating illegalities and in the jettisoning of the scheme of public employment adopted by us while adopting the Constitution. The approving of such acts also results in depriving many of their opportunity to compete for public employment._ ## _**xxxxx**_ ## _**xxxxx**_ _**43.** Thus, it is clear that adherence to the rule of equality in public employment is a basic feature of our Constitution and since the rule of law is the core of our Constitution, a court would certainly be disabled from passing an order upholding a violation of Article 14 or in ordering the overlooking of the need to comply with the requirements of Article 14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution. Therefore, consistent with the scheme for public employment, this Court while laying down the law, has necessarily to hold that unless the appointment is in terms of the relevant rules and after a proper competition among qualified persons, the same would not confer any right on the appointee. If it is a contractual appointment, the appointment comes to an end at the end of the contract, if it were an engagement or appointment on daily wages or casual basis, the same would come to an end when it is discontinued.”_ 5. However, since the process of appointments on the basis of Ext.P21 notification or through the Employment Exchange, is likely to take time, in case the respondents require the service of personnel in the said posts, the petitioners shall be engaged, till fresh appointments are made. For this purpose, the petitioners shall submit a representation before the 2[nd] respondent, on which, the 2[nd] respondent shall take appropriate action to see that the petitioners W.P.(C).No.31847 of 2017 4 are engaged in accordance with the requirements, till fresh appointments are made pursuant to Ext.P21 or through Employment Exchange. This writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- **P.V.ASHA, JUDGE.** AV