AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Siri Jagan, J.—The petitioners are Class IV temporary employees of the 1st respondent. They are aggrieved by Ext.P2 order whereby they are sought to be disengaged from service with immediate effect. Petitioners therefore seek the following reliefs:
a) call for the records connected with the case;
b) issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash Ext.P2 Order of the 1st respondent.
c) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 1st respondent to re- engage the petitioners as Class IV Temporary Employees
d) declare that the petitioners are entitled to continue in service as Class IV Temporary Employees.
e) declare that Ext.P2 disengagement of the petitioners as Class IV Temporary Employees are illegal and arbitrary.
f) direct the 1st respondent to permit the petitioners to continue in service in the similar posts they worked earlier.
The learned standing counsel appearing for the 1st respondent points out that a Division Bench of this Court has in the judgment in W.P.(C) No. 21467/2003 has specifically directed that all appointments in the 1st respondent shall be strictly adhering to Regulations 6 & 7 of the Kerala State Warehousing Corporation Staff Regulation, 1963 and in W.P.(C) No. 24854/2010, I myself has passed the following interim order:
The learned standing counsel for the 1st respondent submits that all casual employees who have completed 90 days have been disengaged. In paragraph 12 of Ext.P8 judgment, a Division Bench of this Court has specifically directed the respondents that they should ensure that henceforth appointments are to be carried out in the Corporation strictly adhering to Regulations 6 and 7 of the Kerala State Warehousing Corporation Regulations, 1963. The counsel for the 1st respondent admits that the SLP filed against the judgment has been dismissed. That being so, they can engage employees only in accordance with the said direction in Ext.P8 judgment. Therefore, the respondents are directed to see that the above direction of the Division Bench in Ext.P8 judgment is strictly complied with.
Therefore according to the counsel for the respondents the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
Having heard both sides, I am of opinion that, in view of the said Division Bench decision which prohibits temporary appointments also except in accordance with the Regulations 6 & 7 of the Kerala State Warehousing Corporation Staff Regulation, 1963, the petitioners cannot now seek continuation of their temporary engagements which were not in accordance with the Rules. Accordingly this writ petition is dismissed.