AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Manjula Chellur, C.J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. We have gone through the order of Kerala Administrative Tribunal dated
13.07.2012. Petitioners herein approached Tribunal seeking for consideration of their cases also on par with 5th respondent-Geetha T. It is not in
dispute that by Annexure R5(a) and R5(b) regularisation of service of Geetha was done from a particular date along with others. Apparently, the
present petitioners never approached Apex Court or this Court and further they never had the benefit of any positive direction by either High Court
or Supreme Court like that of Geetha and others.
From the records it is seen that several persons seeking regularisation like Geetha had approached this Court, but those writ petitions were
rejected. On rejection of the same at the hands of High Court, they approached the Apex Court and Apex Court rejected their applications
confirming the order of High Court. However, the present petitioners were not any of those persons who had the benefit of a direction like Geetha
and others. Annexure R5(b) refers to the date from which the period of provisional service was regularised so far as Geetha is concerned.
Apparently it is not the case of the petitioners, they are part of this Annexure R5(b). In that view of the matter, the question of regularisation of
provisional service of the present petitioners on par with Geetha will not arise. Therefore, now it is not open to the petitioners to contend that
reading of Annexure R5(a) judgment of the Apex Court would not give any benefit of regularisation of provisional service with effect from a
particular date will not stand to any reason as there is no challenge to the regularisation of service of Geetha which came to be effected on
27.05.2004 itself. Even otherwise, the petitioners cannot seek any right on par with the persons who approached the Apex Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioners alternatively submits that when promotion of Geetha came to be considered, objections were called for and
before objections were received, she was sent for training. Therefore, there was no justification on the move of the Department in sending Geetha
for training without considering the objections of the petitioners. The stand of the respondent authorities before the Tribunal and also before this
Court is nothing but the consideration of the objections of the petitioners. In other words, according to the Department, Geetha stands on a better
footing on account of a specific direction given by the Apex Court as per Annexure R5(b) and the case of the applicants herein cannot be
considered. Therefore for the sake of formality a direction to consider the objections would not stand to any reasoning as it would only amount to
waste of time and no purpose would be achieved.
In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion, no good grounds are made out to consider the case of petitioners either for similar treatment like
Geetha or to consider their objections.
Accordingly, the Original Petition is dismissed.