High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2022-06-21Petition allowed

T. N. JAYASANKAR v. STATE OF KERALA & ORS

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) 21336/2019

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Devan Ramachandran
Judgment Date: 2022-06-21
Court Decision / Holding: The writ petition is allowed. Ext.P24 is set aside. The competent Government authority must consider Ext.P23 and take a final decision regarding the petitioner’s request for regularisation, expeditiously but not later than two months from receipt of the judgment, with Ext.P28 in mind during the process.
Final Disposition: Petition allowed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

T. N. JAYASANKAR

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Secretary to Government, Department of Tourism, Thiruvananthapuram-695001
The Director, Kerala Institute of Tourism and Travel Studies, Residency, Thycaud, Thiruvananthapuram, PIN-695014

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. Elvin Peter P.J.
• Sri. K.R. Ganesh

Counsels for Respondents

• Smt. Resmi Thomas-GP

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner, T. N. Jayasankar, a Lecturer (Travel and Tourism) in the Kerala Institute of Tourism and Travel Studies (KITTS), challenges a Government decision denying regularisation of his service. He contends he was selected through a valid process and has completed over 20 years of service, making him eligible for regularisation; KITTS had recommended this in Ext.P23. The Government, however, via Ext.P24, rejected the proposal, arguing it would contravene the Supreme Court’s decision in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others v. Uma Devi and Others (2006) and that the post in question was sanctioned only in 2006, rendering prior service irregular. The petitioner points out that Ext.P24 provides no reasons connecting the decision to Uma Devi and notes inconsistent treatment: a Peon post created/regularised by Ext.P28 without Uma Devi objection. The Court finds Ext.P24 silent on the essential reasoning and highlights the petitioner’s lengthy service and the valid selection process. It accepts that even if the post was created in 2006, the petitioner has accrued over 15 years of service, which Uma Devi does not categorically bar, and the Government had previously favoured Ext.P23. Consequently, the Court sets aside Ext.P24, directs the Government to act on Ext.P23, and finalise the regularisation within two months, while keeping Ext.P28 in view.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Uma Devi (Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others v. Uma Devi and Others) 2006 (4) SCC 1 – doctrine on regularisation and post-creation eligibility; Government to decide considering years of service and applicable norms.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner submits that Ext.P23, which recommended regularisation of his post, has not been properly acted upon and Ext.P24 lacks reasoned justification linking the decision to Uma Devi. He emphasizes long service (over 20 years) after a valid selection process and argues that the Government’s contrary posture is inconsistent with its earlier stance and with equal treatment accorded to similar posts (e.g., Peon regularisation via Ext.P28). The petitioner contends that Uma Devi cannot automatically bar regularisation where due process and substantial service have been rendered; the Government’s role is to evaluate legality and equity rather than mechanically apply a post-2006 cut-off.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents contend Ext.P24 relies on Uma Devi to oppose regularisation, citing that the post was created in 2006, rendering pre-2006 service irregular. They argue the order Ext.P24 lacks reasons and that the Finance Department objected to KITTS’s recommendations. They note the Government previously supported Ext.P23 and that Ext.P28 regularised another post without Uma Devi concerns. The respondents assert the need for a principled determination by the Government, weighing post-creation norms and the applicant’s long service.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others v. Uma Devi and Others	2006 (4) SCC 1	Positive	Uma Devi is relied upon to assess eligibility for regularisation and timing of post-creation norms; the court acknowledges this doctrine but notes Ext.P24 did not adequately justify deviation from or alignment with Uma Devi.

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 T. N. JAYASANKAR 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 MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 21[ST] DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 31ST JYAISHTA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 21336 OF 2019`** ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` T.N.JAYASANKAR, AGED 54 YEARS S/O.LATE NARAYANAN PILLAI, VRINDAVAN, 12/809 KRA LANE-6, HOUSE NO.5, INFOPARK ROAD, KAKKANADU, ERNAKULAM-682030. ``` ``` BY ADVS. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. SRI.K.R.GANESH ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - `1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF TOURISM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.` ``` 2THE DIRECTOR, KERALA INSTITUTE OF TOURISM AND TRAVEL STUDIES, RESIDENCY, THYCAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695014. ``` ## `SMT RESMI THOMAS-GP` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` WPC 21336/19 2 ## **`JUDGMENT`** The petitioner is stated to be working as a Lecturer (Travel and Tourism) in the services of the Kerala Institute of Tourism and Travel Studies (hereinafter referred to as ‘KITTS for short), which is an institution wholly controlled and managed by the Government of Kerala. He says that since his appointment was done through a valid selection process and since he has completed more than 20 years of service, he is eminently eligible to be regularised in service; for which purpose, he made a request, which was conceded to by the Executive Committee of the KITTS and a suitable recommendation made by them to the Government. 2. The petitioner says that though the Government approved the afore resolution of KITTS through Ext.P23, it has been now rejected by the Secretary to the Tourism Department merely saying that if the said resolution is acceded to, it would amount to a violation of the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others v. WPC 21336/19 3 Uma Devi and Others [2006 (4) SCC 1]. He asserts that the reasons stated in Ext.P24 are untenable and therefore, liable to be interdicted by this Court. 3. I have heard Sri.K.R.Ganesh – learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Resmi Thomas – learned Government Pleader for the respondents. 4. Even to a pointed question from this Court, Smt.Resmi Thomas was unable to inform that how, in Ext.P24, the Tourism Department has found that the proposal for approval of the petitioner’s service would be contrary to Uma Devi (supra). The only explanation offered by her was that the post in question was sanctioned only on 17.01.2006 and therefore, that the petitioner’s service prior to that can only be seen to be irregular. She submitted that it is perhaps on this ground that the Finance Department has objected to the recommendations made by KITTS, but conceded that, through Ext.P23, the Government had taken a view in favour of the petitioner. 5. When I evaluate the afore submissions and go WPC 21336/19 4 through Ext.P24, as rightly argued by the petitioner, no reasons have been stated therein as to how the proposal for his regularisation of appointment would fall foul of Uma Devi (supra). The said order merely says that it does so, but without assigning any reason. This is crucial because, the petitioner says that he was appointed through a valid process of selection and that he has been continuing in service for more than 20 years. Even assuming that this Court accepts the afore argument of the learned Government Pleader – that the post was created only in the year 2006 – the petitioner has now evidently completed more than 15 years of service. Going by the periods fixed in Uma Devi (supra), petitioner is eminently eligible, though the question whether his appointment would in any manner fall within the prohibited categories as stipulated therein, is not a matter on which this Court can speak conclusively, but which was within the ambit of consideration of the Government. 6. That being said, in Ext.P23, the Government has already taken a decision in favour of the petitioner and one fails to understand how the Secretary to the Tourism Department can WPC 21336/19 5 speak to the contrary. This is more so because, the services of the incumbent in the post of Peon, which was also created along with the post now occupied by the petitioner, is seen regularised through Ext.P28 order of the Government, without mentioning any inhibition on account of Uma Devi (supra). Resultantly, I order this Writ Petition and set aside Ext.P24; with a consequential direction to the competent Authority of the Government to advert to Ext.P23 and take a final decision with respect to the request of the petitioner for regularisation, as recommended by the KITTS; thus culminating as in an appropriate order and necessary action thereon expeditiously as is possible, but not later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Needless to say, while completing the afore exercise, . Ext.P28 will also be kept in mind by the competent Authority ``` Sd/- ``` ``` RR ``` ``` DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE ``` WPC 21336/19 6 ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21336/2019`** - `PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF ORDER NO.E1/11352/99 DATED 1.02.2000 BY THE DIRECTOR OF KITTS.` - `EXHIBIT P2 THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER NO.KITTS/ESST/14/2002 DATED 19.03.2002.` - `EXHIBIT P3 THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 25.7.2002 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR.` - `EXHIBIT P4 THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER NO.20/2006/TSM DATED 17.01.2006.` - `EXHIBIT P5 THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 09.01.2006 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR KITTS TO THE PETITIONER.` - `EXHIBIT P6 THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE DIRECTOR VIDE ORDER NO.KITTS/MLC/06 DATED 24.01.2006.` - `EXHIBIT P7 THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ADVERTISEMENT.` - `EXHIBIT P8 THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 30.06.2006.` - `EXHIBIT P9 THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR DATED 4.4.2006.` - `EXHIBIT P10 THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE AGENDA NOTES OF KITTS DATED 11.06.2009.` ``` EXHIBIT P11THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE LETTER NO.KITTS/ESTT-ADM/KIHMS/11 DATED 5.11.2011 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR KITTS TO THE SECRETARY TOURISM DEPARTMENT. ``` - `EXHIBIT P12 THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE MINUTES OF MEETING OF THE 36TH EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE DATED 11.04.2012.` ``` EXHIBIT P13THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER NO.KITTS-PSC/ESST-ADMN/10 DATED 23.11.2010. ``` - `EXHIBIT P14 THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.07.2012 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR KITTS TO THE PETITIONER.` - `EXHIBIT P15 THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE MINUTES OF 38TH EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE KITTS HELD ON 27.11.2013.` - `EXHIBIT P16 THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER G.O. (RT)NO.74/2015/TSM DATED 03.03.2015.` - `EXHIBIT P17 THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE RELEVANT` WPC 21336/19 7 - `EXTRACT OF THE MINUTES OF 40TH EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE KITTS HELD ON 17.03.2015.` - `EXHIBIT P18 THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE LETTER NO.2668/KITTS/MAL/14 DATED 20.03.2015 FROM DIRECTOR KITTS TO THE SECRETARY, TOURISM.` - `EXHIBIT P19 THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE LETTER NO.1613/B3/2015/TOURISM DATED 15.06.2015 TO THE DIRECTOR KITTS.` - `EXHIBIT P20 THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 24.11.2015.` - `EXHIBIT P21 THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE LETTER NO.1613/B3/2015/TOURISM DATED 15.02.2016 TO THE DIRECTOR KITTS.` - `EXHIBIT P22 THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE LETTER NO.475/KITTS/MALAYATTOR/2016/KITTS DATED 19.02.2016 ALONG WITH REPORT.` - `EXHIBIT P23 THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE RELEVANT PROCEEDINGS AS PER FILE NO.1613/B3/15/TOURISM DATED 5.03.2016.` - `EXHIBIT P24 THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER NO.1613/B3/15/TOURISM DATED 01.05.2017.` - `EXHIBIT P25 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT LETTER NO.KITTS/EMP/1/96 DATED 11.08.98 AND PROCEEDINGS OF THE DIRECTOR DATED 16.08.2003.` - `EXHIBIT P26 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT LETTER NO.KITTS/EMP/95.96 DATED 8.02.96 AND PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 22.04.1999.` - `EXHIBIT P27 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.7.2002 ISSUED BY TGE JITTS APPOINTING THE PETITIONER AS LECTURER ON CONTRACT BASIS` - `EXHIBIT P27 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.7.2002 ISSUED BY TGE JITTS APPOINTING THE PETITIONER AS LECTURER ON CONTRACT BASIS` - `EXHIBIT P28 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTE NO 1291/CSC/2016 DATED 4.8.2016` - `EXHIBIT P30 DDRESSED BY TE THEN LAW SECRETARY TO THE CABINET SECRETARY` - `EXHIBIT P29 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 10.2.2021 BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT` WPC 21336/19 8 ## `RESPONDENT EXHIBITS` ``` EXHIBIT R2 ATRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 25.7.2002 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT R2 BTRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE MATHRUBHUMI DAILY DATED 15.2.2006 EXHIBIT R2 CTRUE COPY OF APPOINTMENT LETTER DATED 30.6.2006 ISSUED TO THE PETITONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT R2 DTRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.KITTS- PSC-ESST -ADM/10 DATED 23.11.2020 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT R2 ETRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO 1613/B3/15/TSM DATED 1.5.2017 EXHIBIT R2 FTRUE COPY OF GO(MS) NO.20/2006/TSM DATED 17.1.2006 ```