M.K. Parvathy vs Government of India and Others

K. Vinod Chandran, J.—The petitioner claims to be a Srilankan repatriate, having been repatriated at the age of nine. The petitioner claims that, as per Exhibit P1, age concession for appointment in Government services, aimed at rehabilitation of repatriates/migrants, was promulgated by the Government of Kerala. As per the said age concession benefits, the petitioner would be entitled to claim concession with respect to any employment she seeks till the age of 45 years. The petitioner having been registered in the Employment Exchange, was recommended by the Employment Officer, Thrissur under the O.B.C. category for provisional employment as Care Taker with the Government Juvenile Home, Ramavarmapuram. While the petitioner was continuing so on provisional basis, apprehending termination, she approached this Court by O.P. No. 13587 of 2000, which was allowed as per Exhibit P2 judgment. By an interim order, she was allowed to continue during the pendency of the Original Petition and on final disposal, she was held to be a person entitled to be treated as a Srilankan repatriate and also eligible for the concessions regarding age. In such circumstances, the petitioner was directed to be continued in the employment of Care Taker till such time the representation filed by her was considered by the Government. Subsequently, the representation was rejected as per Exhibit P3, which is under challenge in the above Original Petition.

It is not disputed that her employment in the Government Juvenile Home, Ramavarmapuram as Care Taker was provisional and also that the said appointment was on the basis of her registration with the Employment Exchange. The petitioner cannot claim any lien over the post; nor can she claim regularisation. True, the petitioner''s eligibility to be considered as a Srilankan repatriate was found by Exhibit P2 judgment. Her eligibility for age concession as per Exhibit P1 also cannot be disputed. However, the question is whether she was ever denied treatment as a Srilankan repatriate or denied age concessions as per Exhibit P1. As noticed in Exhibit P3, the agreements of 1964 or 1974 between India and Srilanka, does not make it obligatory on the Government of India or the Government of the States to ensure or guarantee employment to such repatriates; nor does the agreement speak of any reservation to such repatriates by virtue of their identity as repatriates other than the reservation applicable to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes or other backward community. Needless to say that the denial of recognition of the petitioner''s identity as a Srilankan repatriate or the denial of eligibility for age concession has never occurred, since the petitioner does not claim consideration to any particular vacancy; but her claim is for regularisation of service in the vacancy to which she has been provisionally appointed. Exhibit P3, on the face of it, cannot be faulted. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Original Petition is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed.

In the result, the Original Petition is dismissed, however, with no order as to costs.