High Court of KeralaWP(C)/28620/2015disposed of

Anitha M. v. The State Of Kerala

2015-10-21Honourable Mr.Justice K.Vinod Chandran6 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2015/29TH ASWINA, 1937 ---------------------------- PETITIONERS:

---------------------

1. ANITHA M. AGED 43 YEARS D/O. KRISHNANKUTTY, KUNHIMOOLAYIL, GOVERNMENT QUARTERS MUNDERI, KALPETTA VILLAGE, VYTHIRI TALUK WAYANAD DISTRICT.

2. AYISHA M.

D/O. MARAKKAR, MEMANA HOUSE, ERANHIVAYAL KALPETTA VILLAGE, VYTHIRI TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAKESH RESPONDENTS:

----------------------------

1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRSENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY (K), SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 001.

2. THE SECRETARY, KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

ADDL. RESPONDENTS ADDL.R3. SABEENA BEEGUM M.S., AGED 42 YEARS, W/O. MUHAMMED SEERASI, PLAVILAKATHU VEEDU, KEEZHTHONNAKKAL POTHENCODE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT PRESENTLY WORKING AS UPPER DIVISION CLERK IN THE KERALA KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD OFFICE, VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695024.

ADDL.R4 SATHYA NIRMALA P., AGED 44 YEARS, W/O. JAYAN, 'VASANTHAM', KASTHURBA NAGAR, AKATHETHARA, PALAKKAD - 678 008. PRESENTLY WORKING AS UPPER DIVISION CLERK

IN THE DISTRICT KAHDI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES OFFICE, PALAKKAD

...2

-2ADDL.R5 HEMAKUMAR S. AGED 45 YEARS, S/O. SADANANDADASAN NAIR, 'HARINAMAM', VALAMCHERY, KILIMANOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 601 PRESENTLY WORKING AS UPPER DIVISIN CLERK IN THE KERALA KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD OFFICE, VANCHIYOOR THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695024 ADDL.R6 PADMANABHAN P., AGED 50 YEARS, S/O. A.V. KUNHAMBU NAMBIAR, PAPPINISSERY HOUSE, VADUVIL P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT 670 582 PRESENTLY WORKING AS UPPER DIVISION CLERK IN THE PAYYANUR KHADI CENTRE, PAYYANUR 670 307 ADDL.R7 ROY O.R. ODASSERIAL HOUSE, V.P. THURUTH, KOTTAPPURAM P.O., KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT PRESENTLY WORKING AS UPPER DIVISION CLERK IN THE DISTRICT KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES OFFICE, ERNAKULAM 682017 ADDL.R8 P.K. LATHEESH KUMAR, PANANGATTU PARAMBIL, KIZHAKKEPPURAM PUKKATT ROAD, NORTH PARAVOOR, ERNAKULAM PRESENTLY WORKING AS UPPER DIVISION CLERK IN THE DISTRICT KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES OFFICE, ERNAKULAM 682 017.

ADDITIONAL R3 TO R8 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 13.10.15 IN I.A. 14613/2015 ADDL R3 -R8 BY ADV. SRI.K.P.HARISH R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. M.J. RAJASREE R2 BY SRI.TOM K.THOMAS, SC KERALA KHADI & VILLAGE INDUSTRIES THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21-10-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

---------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXHIBIT-P1TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER AS G.O(P) 32/1998/P&ARD DATED 28/09/1998.

EXHIBIT-P2TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(P) 18/99 P&ARD DATED 13/10/1999. EXHIBIT-P3TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DATED 20/01/2003 OF THE KHADI BOARD.

EXHIBIT-P4TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT LETTER ISSUED BY THE KHADI BOARD TO THE PETITIONER DATED 16/04/2015.

EXHIBIT-P5TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE IST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 25/05/2015.

EXHIBIT-P6TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONERS DATED 28/07/2015.

EXHIBIT-P7TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22/08/2015 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, KHADI BOARD.

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS --------------------------------------- EXHIBIT R3(A) TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.KB.7737/98/E1(B) DATED 17.3.2003 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE JJJ

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No. 28620 of 2015 (B) ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 21st day of October, 2015

J U D G M E N T

The petitioners are handicapped persons who are working as U.D. Clerks in the District Khadi and Village Industries Board, Kalpetta.

The petitioners are persons who got employment through the Employment Exchange and continued for intermittent periods as U.D. Clerks in the respondent Board. Subsequently, on the plea of regularisation being made, the petitioners were regularised. The additional respondents herein are persons who have been appointed by the Public Service Commission on a selection notified. There are also in-service candidates in the post of U.D.Clerk, which is the feeder category to the post of Junior Superintendent. The issue now raised before this Court is with respect to the seniority of petitioners 1 and 2. While the petitioners claim that they are entitled to seniority as on

W.P.(C) No. 28620/2015 -2the date of order of regularisation at Ext.P2, the additional respondents claim that it can only be from the date of regularisation, being Ext.P3.

These are all matters which has to be addressed first by the Secretary and then by way of an appeal to the Board. The Secretary is said to have heard the petitioners herein. The representation of the additional respondents are pending before the Secretary. In such circumstance, it is only proper that the petitioners and the additional respondents be heard together on a day and orders passed immediately thereafter, especially since the issue of promotion to the post of Junior Superintendent is pending consideration.

The petitioners are also aggrieved by the fact that the Office of the Principal Secretary (Industries) has, by Ext.P4, held that the regularisation granted from 1999 is unconstitutional. It is not for the Secretary (Industries) to pre-empt the authority from deciding on such issues.

W.P.(C) No. 28620/2015 -3Hence, the consideration made by the Secretary would have to be de hors the opinion expressed by the Principal Secretary in Ext.P4.

In such circumstance, the petitioners and the additional respondents or their authorised representatives shall be present before the Office of the 2nd respondent on 30.10.2015; on which day, if it is not convenient to the Secretary to go ahead with the hearing, they shall be intimated a date of hearing within two weeks thereafter and the entire exercise finished within one month from the date of hearing. It is made clear that this Court has not observed anything on the merits and it is for the Secretary to consider the rival contentions.

The writ petition is disposed of.

Sd/- K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE jjj 21/10/15 The word "Ext.P3" occurring in the last line of paragraph 2 of the judgment dated 21.10.2015 in W.P.(C) No.28620/2015 is corrected as "Ext.R3(a)" as per order dated 4.11.2015 in I.A. 15936/2015 in WP.(C) No.28620/2015. Sd/- Registrar (Judicial)