T.V. Suresh Kumar and others v. State of Kerala and Kerala Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd. (WP(C).No.40730 of 2018)
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- Devan Ramachandran
- bench_type: Single Judge
- Judgment Date
- 2019-07-10
- Court Decision / Holding
- Writ petition disposed with directions. The Managing Director of the respondent-Society must consider regularization of the petitioners under the directions of Para 53 Umadevi (Supra) and issue an appropriate order after affording them a hearing. Until such exercise is completed, the petitioners are not to be retained; they are to be relieved only after PSC joins duty.
- Final Disposition
- Disposed with directions to consider regularization under Para 53 Umadevi and issue a reasoned order after hearing; no immediate retention; relief contingent on PSC involvement.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- T.V. Suresh Kumar
- Girish K.
- Sunil U.
- Mohandasn M.
Respondents
- State of Kerala, represented by its Secretary to Government, Department of Agriculture (Diary), Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram
- Kerala Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd., represented by its Managing Director, Milma Bhavan, Pattom Palace P.O., Thiruvananthapuram
- The Senior Manager, Kerala Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd., Cattle Feed Plant, Malampuzha, Palakkad
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Kaleeswaram Raj Kumar
- • Aruna Kum.
- • Thulasi K. Raj
- • Maitreyi Sachidananda Hegde
- • Riya Raymol Iype
- • Varun C. Vijay
Counsels for Respondents
- • Latha Anand
- • N.B. Sunilnath
Case Synopsis & Summary
The petitioners, four workers employed as technicians at the Milma Cattle Feed Plant of the Kerala Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd., challenge Ext.P9, a Government order that denied regularization and appointment to the workers’ category. The petitioners allege that they have served for over a decade, including sponsorship under the Employment Exchange, and seek regularization under the Supreme Court’s Umadevi doctrine (paragraph 53). The respondents, represented by the Federation and its counsel, argue that regularization under Umadevi cannot be countenanced as a one-time, exhausted measure, and that any appointment to a different category (including “worker”) would require PSC processes now in place. The judge notes the limited latitude of the court in welfare matters but recognizes that the petitioners’ claims are supported by the Umadevi framework. It is observed that vacancies exist and that direct recruitment to the worker category is governed by PSC notifications. The court requires the Federation’s Managing Director to consider regularization for the petitioners under Para 53 of Umadevi (Supra) and to pass a reasoned order after giving the petitioners an opportunity of hearing. While the court partially grants relief by directing this re-examination, it declines immediate retention, ordering that the petitioners be relieved only after PSC joins duty. The writ petition is ordered with these directions.
Provisions of Law Cited
Legal Doctrines & Maxims
- Umadevi doctrine (Para 53) — regularization in public employment as a one-time measure, with subsequent reliance on PSC frameworks.
- Direction that regularization can be sought under the Umadevi framework subject to judicial guidance and hearing
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
Petitioners contend that they have served for over 10 years under sponsorship and are entitled to regularization under the Umadevi doctrine (Para 53). If regularization is not feasible, they should be appointed in vacancies in the worker category, since that is the category for direct recruitment. They rely on Umadevi to seek a one-time relief, arguing that the Society has previously availed similar relief.
Contentions of Respondents
Respondents submit that regularization under Umadevi is a one-time measure that has already been exhausted; recruitment to any other category, including workers, is now handled through PSC notifications, leaving no direct recruitment by the Society. Ext.P9 is argued to be valid, and the Court should not intervene beyond the existing PSC framework.
Cited Precedents (1)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others v. Umadevi (3) and Others | (2006) 4 SCC 1 | Positive | The court relies on the Umadevi doctrine (para 53) to justify regularization as a one-time measure and directs its application in the present case. |
Diagnostic Tool
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.V. Suresh Kumar and others v. State of Kerala and Kerala Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd. (WP(C).No.40730 of 2018) and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.