Government Appointments subject to State Rules

Binu vs. State of Kerala

Filed Under: Rule 9(a) (i), State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958
Appellant:Binu
Respondent: State of Kerala
Citation: 2003 (2) KLT 207
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: KK Denesan

Facts

Binu was a physically handicapped and was appointed temporarily as a Clerk-Typist in the office of the Commissioner for Government Examinations in the Educational Department. He worked there for about three months and was remunerated by way of daily wages. He filed this appeal against the order of termination of his services.

Arguments made on behalf of Binu

On the basis of a Government Order (GO), he contended that he was eligible for appointment under the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995. He made a further claim for re-appointment and continuance of his services.

In the GO dated 28.9.98, orders were issued that the physically handicapped provisional (temporary) employees who were engaged in service during the period 1.1.1997 to 31.12.1997 would be retained/re-appointed in service on a purely provisional basis until the final decision is taken by the Kerala Public Service Commission

Arguments made on behalf of the State of Kerala

The State of Kerala rejected Binu’s claim. The reason stated was that this GO was applicable only to such physically handicapped persons who were appointed through the Employment Exchanges and since Binu’s appointment was on a daily wage basis, his appointment would not come under the purview of that GO. It was also contended that Binu had been appointed temporarily as a typist-clerk and after he had served for some time his services had been terminated.

Observations of the Court

The Court examined the relevant Rule 9(a) (i) and stated that it did not speak about the remuneration payable to the employee or about the mode of payment. The Court held that the mode of payment was totally irrelevant for deciding whether Binu’s temporary appointment came within the purview of the rule.

The Court also observed this issue from a different perspective and concluded that unlike employment under private employers, appointments in Government service were made according to the power conferred by the law to the appointing authorities.

The Court pointed out that the appointments to government services, whether temporary or official were made according to the rules passed by the Kerala Public Services Act, 1968. And accordingly, the internal rules of specific organizations could not govern the appointments to Government Services

In light of these reasons the Court held that Binu’s appointment as clerk-typist came within the purview of R. 9(a) (i) and therefore he was entitled to get the benefit ofre-appointment/regularization in service in accordance with the GO.

The Court accordingly quashed the order of termination and directed the respondents to re-appoint Binu as a Clerk-Typist giving him the benefits of the GO. The Court also directed the Education Department to consider Binu’s claim for pay and allowances for the period for 27.3.2000 to 19.9.2001 in the post of clerk-typist. The original petition was accordingly allowed.