Dr. R. Venugopal & Ors. Vs. State of Kerala & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Writ Petition No.672 of 1988.
Petitioner: Dr. R. Venugopal & Ors.
Respondent: State of Kerala & Ors.
Apeal: Writ Petition No.672 of 1988.
Judges: M.P.THAKKAR & B.C. RAY,JJ:
Date of Judgment: Jul 15, 1988
Head Note:
SERVICE
Regularisation – Permission for ad-hoc appointees to appear in PSC exams and relaxation of age bar in their cases – Court’s recommendation made in Narayani’s case on sympathetic consideration and on compassionate grounds to be heeded to by the State Administration – Petitioners ad-hoc appointees not to be relieved till regular appointees take charge.
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. The petitioners were appointed on ad-hoc basis till regular appointments were made. Now the State is proceeding to make regular appointments. The petitioners pray that a recommendation should be made in the same terms as it was done in the case of Smt. P.K.Narayani & Ors. vs. State of Kerala & Ors. – 1984 (Supp.) S.C.C. 212. The innocuous recommendation made in Narayani’s case was to the effect that the ad-hoc appointees should be permitted to appear in the Public Service Commission examination and compete with the others and that in such cases where the age bar was attracted, the Government might relax the age bar in order to enable them to appear. A recommendation, also an innocuous one, has also been made that till the regular appointees take charge, the ad-hoc appointees shall not be relived from the posts. It is not necessary to admit this matter and to pass an order in the said terms. The innocuous recommendations made in narayani’s case on sympathetic consideration and on compassionate grounds would be heeded by the State Administration and we have no doubt that when the petitioner apply for the age bar being relaxed, an appropriate order will be passed by the State Government in this behalf. So also the recommendation as regards not relieving the petitioners of the charge till the regular appointees are selected and they take charge is a recommendation which the State Government would accept without hesitation for there would be no good reason to relieve the petitioners of the charge till the regular appointees are available for filling up the vacancies. We trust that on a copy of this order being produced before the State Government, the recommendations made in narayani’s case which we reiterate here will be heeded to. With these observations, the Writ petition is dismissed.
1. The petitioners were appointed on ad-hoc basis till regular appointments were made. Now the State is proceeding to make regular appointments. The petitioners pray that a recommendation should be made in the same terms as it was done in the case of Smt. P.K.Narayani & Ors. vs. State of Kerala & Ors. – 1984 (Supp.) S.C.C. 212. The innocuous recommendation made in Narayani’s case was to the effect that the ad-hoc appointees should be permitted to appear in the Public Service Commission examination and compete with the others and that in such cases where the age bar was attracted, the Government might relax the age bar in order to enable them to appear. A recommendation, also an innocuous one, has also been made that till the regular appointees take charge, the ad-hoc appointees shall not be relived from the posts. It is not necessary to admit this matter and to pass an order in the said terms. The innocuous recommendations made in narayani’s case on sympathetic consideration and on compassionate grounds would be heeded by the State Administration and we have no doubt that when the petitioner apply for the age bar being relaxed, an appropriate order will be passed by the State Government in this behalf. So also the recommendation as regards not relieving the petitioners of the charge till the regular appointees are selected and they take charge is a recommendation which the State Government would accept without hesitation for there would be no good reason to relieve the petitioners of the charge till the regular appointees are available for filling up the vacancies. We trust that on a copy of this order being produced before the State Government, the recommendations made in narayani’s case which we reiterate here will be heeded to. With these observations, the Writ petition is dismissed.
