Kerala High Court
Praveen.S vs State Of Kerala on 7 July, 2026
Author: Anil K.Narendran
Bench: Anil K.Narendran
1
OP(KAT)No.200 of 2019
2026:KER:50201
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JULY 2026 / 16TH ASHADHA, 1948
OP(KAT) NO. 200 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 08.02.2018 IN OA NO.239 OF 2017 OF
KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH AT ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER:
PRAVEEN.S.
AGED 26 YEARS
S/O.SETHUNATH.G., WORKING AS DRIVER CUM OFFICE
ATTENDANT(ON CONTRACT BASIS), OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT
DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, ADOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA
DISTRICT, PIN-689 649, RESIDING AT PRAVEEN BHAVANAM,
PARAKODE P.O., ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-689
554.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.C.S.AJITH PRAKASH
SMT.T.N.SREEKALA
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2 THE DIRECTOR, AGRICULTURE DEVELOPMENT AND FARMERS
WELFARE,VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 033.
3 THE PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
PATHANAMTHITTA, MINI CIVIL STATION BUILDING,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-689 649.
2
OP(KAT)No.200 of 2019
2026:KER:50201
4 THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE,
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, ADOOR
P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-689 649.
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT. ANN MARIA FRANCIS, GP
THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 07.07.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
3
OP(KAT)No.200 of 2019
2026:KER:50201
JUDGMENT
Muralee Krishna, J.
The applicant in O.A.(EKM)No.239 of 2017 on the file of the
Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Additional Bench at Ernakulam
(the ‘Tribunal’ for short) filed this original petition, invoking the
supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, challenging Ext.P1 order dated 08.02.2018
passed by the Tribunal in that original application.
2. Going by the averments in the original application, the
petitioner is working as a Driver cum Office Attendant on contract
basis. He was selected on the basis of a selection process
consisting of an interview. Accordingly, the 3rd respondent
appointed the petitioner as Driver cum Office Attendant on
contract basis as evidenced by Annexure A1 order dated
28.01.2014. A perusal of Annexure A1 shows that there is no time
limit for the said appointment of the petitioner. The 2 nd respondent
now issued Annexures A2 to A4 Circulars dated 30.09.2016,
18.12.2016 and 28.12.2016 respectively, directing the Principal
Agricultural Officers to terminate the service of the daily
wages/contract staff and to conduct a fresh selection process to
4
OP(KAT)No.200 of 2019
2026:KER:50201
fill up the vacancies. Based on Annexure A2 to A4 Circulars,
respondents 3 and 4 have taken steps to replace the petitioner by
conducting a fresh selection process and to select candidates on
the basis of their whims and fancies. It is well settled that a
contract employee shall not be replaced by another contract
employee and he must be replaced only by a regularly selected
employee by the Public Service Commission or a temporary
employee appointed through Employment Exchange in terms of
Rule 9(1)(i) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules
(KS & SSR for short). This is to avoid arbitrary action on the part
of the appointing authority. As per Annexure A2 Circular, the
direction of the 2nd respondent was not to replace the
temporary/contract employee by candidates selected by the Public
Service Commission or sponsored by the Employment Exchange,
but to consider a fresh selection process for the said posts, which
is illegal, arbitrary and vitiated by nepotism. With these pleadings,
the petitioner filed the original application under Section 19 of the
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following reliefs:
“(i) To issue a declaration that Annexure A2 to A4 circulars
issued by the 2nd respondent is illegal, arbitrary and vitiated
5OP(KAT)No.200 of 2019
2026:KER:50201
by mala fide.
(ii) To issue a further declaration that the applicant is
entitled to continue as Driver cum Office Attendant till
candidate selected by the Public Service Commission or
Employment Exchange is appointed against the post and
also to declare that the applicant cannot be replaced by
another set of contract employees.
(iii) To call for the records leading to Annexure A2 to A4 and
set aside the same.
(iv) To direct the respondents to retain the applicant as
Driver cum Office Attender till candidates selected by the
Public Service Commission or Employment Exchange are
appointed against those posts.
(v) To issue a direction, directing respondents to pay
revised salary at the rate of Rs.18,000/-per month from
01.04.2016 onwards to the applicant”.
3. The Tribunal considered the original application along
with connected matters, i.e., O.A. (EKM) Nos.1509, 1581, 1980
and 2081 of 2016 and 195, 196, 535, 737 and 958 of 2017. On
behalf of the 2nd respondent, by way of Ext.P4 adoption memo
dated 09.08.2017, the reply statement dated 09.08.2017 filed in
O.A. (EKM)No.1980 of 2016 was placed on record in the above
original application, stating that the matter involved and the issue
to be decided in both the original applications are the same. To
6
OP(KAT)No.200 of 2019
2026:KER:50201
that reply statement, the petitioner filed Ext.P5 rejoinder dated
22.10.2017. Thereafter, by Ext.P1 impugned order, the Tribunal
disposed of the above original application along with the
connected matters holding that though the applicants, contractual
employees to the post of drivers-cum office attenders, are not
entitled for retention in service, their termination from service
shall be for effecting appointments through Employment Exchange
in accordance with the provisions of the Employment Exchange
(Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959. The applicants
shall be retained in service till they are replaced by contractual
appointees/provisional appointees engaged through Employment
Exchange. Paragraphs 15 to 19 and the last paragraph of that
order read thus;
“15. The question whether the applicants could be replaced
by another set of temporary/contractual employees is to be
considered. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of
Haryana and Others V. Piara Singh and Others [1992
4 SCC 118] was considering ad hoc appointment made
against regular posts and the plight of the above ad hoc
employee who have been continuing for years together. In
the present case , the applicants were appointed initially for
the year 2013 and in certain cases in the succeeding years.
7
OP(KAT)No.200 of 2019
2026:KER:50201
The applicants would not therefore come within the purview
of the above judgment as they have not been continuing for
years together, nor were they engaged against regular
posts. This Tribunal as per the judgment in SC Promoters
Case , O.A. No.882 of 2015 and connected cases ,
considering the decision in Piara Singh‘s case (cited supra)
held as follows;
“The Government has not sanctioned the posts. It is not
a case where permanent posts were created resulting in
regular vacancies and were filled up by contract
employees. The method by way of selection was only for
making contract appointment for fixed periods.
Therefore, it is not a case where at any time duly
prescribed procedures were there for making any
permanent appointment. The area is not occupied by any
rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution also.
It has already been found that the norms adopted and
the process of selection were for making purely
contractual appointment. Therefore, in various years
under different/successive notifications persons were
selected and engaged in like capacities. No regular
recruitment was ever envisaged. Therefore the situation
envisaged in Piara Singh‘s case (supra) that a temporary
or casual employee should be replaced only by a regular
hand is not attracted to the facts of these cases as duly
sanctioned posts are not there and no permanent
appointments are contemplated under the project also.”
The Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court, while
8
OP(KAT)No.200 of 2019
2026:KER:50201
upholding the above order as per the judgment in O.P.(KAT)
No.125 of 2017 and connected cases dated 31.08.2017
considered in detail the contentions based on the decision
in Piara Singh‘s case (cited supra) and held as follows:
“22. The factual context as noted in paragraph 2 of the
judgment in Piara Singh‘s case was that, over a period
of several years, the permanent posts available in the
Government Service were not being filled up by the
Government, but for going on effecting ad-hoc
appointment/temporary appointments and continuing
them for quite long and at times, replacing one set of
ad-hoc/temporary employees by another set, even
without reference to the Public Service
Commission/Subordinate Selection Board/Employment
Exchange. This was deprecated by the Apex Court
holding that, in so far as there was no dispute to the
fact that it was against ‘sanctioned posts’ that such an
exercise was being pursued, one set of temporary hands
cannot be replaced by another set of temporary hands
and that such vacancies should be filled up by regular
hands. The said observation does not come to the
rescue of the petitioners to hold that the temporary
hands are having a right to continue in service for ever,
till vacancies are filled up on regular basis, in so far as
there is no sanctioned posts and regular appointment
is never contemplated under the Scheme/G.O in view of
the limited scope of job requirement/engagement. As it
stands so, we find that the challenge raised by the
9OP(KAT)No.200 of 2019
2026:KER:50201
petitioners against Ext.P1 passed by the Tribunal fails,
warranting no interference.”
16.The Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court also
considered the judgment in Mohd. Abdul Kadir and
Another v. Director General of Police, Assam and
Others [2009(6) SCC 611] in paragraph 23 therein. It
was observed that the Apex Court was considering the case
wherein posts have been sanctioned and it was against the
said sanctioned posts that ad hoc appointments were made
and that those ad hoc employees were continuing in service
for years together. The Division Bench accordingly held that
in the absence of any sanctioned posts, when the scheme
is being continued with specific mandate to have it operated
by engaging ad hoc/ temporary engagement, subject to the
specific conditions, with the particular nature of job
requirements and the right to receive an honorarium, the
petitioners could not seek to have any benefit with
reference to the position dealt with by the Apex Court. This
proposition applies on all fours to the case at hand.
17. In view of the pronouncement by this Tribunal and the
Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court , the case of the
applicants for continuation in service and regularization
cannot be accepted. The contentions put forth by the
applicants that they could be replaced only by regular
appointees through the Public Service Commission also
cannot be accepted considering the fact that no regular
appointment was possible when sanctioned posts were not
available. The applicants are only entitled to the
10
OP(KAT)No.200 of 2019
2026:KER:50201
wages/honorarium fixed as per the terms of the agreement.
However, the question whether such contractual
appointments as Drivers-cum-Office Attenders could be
effected through Employment Exchange requires
consideration, more especially so, in the light of the
communication, Annexure R2(c) issued by the Employment
Director.
18. The State Government has issued specific directions by
way of Circular referred to in Annexure R2(c) directing the
subordinate authorities to ensure that contractual
appointments/provisional appointments which does not
come within the purview of the Public Service Commission
to be done through the Employment Exchange under the
Employment Exchange (Compulsory Notification of
Vacancies) Act, 1959. It is also noted that eligible hands for
appointment as Drivers-cum-Office Attenders were readily
available for appointment through Employment Exchanges.
The requirement for appointment from open market is not
discernible from the impugned Circular, Annexure A4 or the
reply statement preferred by the second respondent,
Director of Agriculture.
19. Though the applicants, contractual employees to the
post of Drivers-cum Office Attenders, are not entitled for
retention in service, their termination from service shall be
for effecting appointments through Employment Exchange
in accordance with the provisions of the Employment
Exchange (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959.
The applicants shall be retained in service till they are
11
OP(KAT)No.200 of 2019
2026:KER:50201
replaced by contractual appointees/provisional appointees
engaged through Employment Exchange.
The Original Applications are disposed of as above.”
4. Being aggrieved, the petitioner is now before this
Court with this original petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Government Pleader.
6. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel
for the petitioner pointed out that some of the applicants in the
connected original applications had already approached this Court
challenging Ext.P1, the impugned common order with respect to
their respective cases, and this Court dismissed those original
petitions in limine. Ext.P6 is the judgment dated 28.03.2018 in
O.P.(KAT)No.136 of 2018, which was filed by the applicant in O.A.
(EKM) No.2081 of 2016. Meanwhile, when the respondents
initiated steps to replace those who approached the Tribunal only
by conducting recruitment through employment exchange, the
petitioner herein, along with the applicants in O.A.No.1509 of
2016, again approached the Tribunal by filing O.A.No. 1139 of
2018 challenging the action taken by the respondents on the
ground of discrimination. The said O.A. was disposed of by the
12
OP(KAT)No.200 of 2019
2026:KER:50201
Tribunal by Ext.P8 order dated 17.07.2018, with a direction that
any decision to replace the services of driver-cum-office attenders
will be implemented uniformly and no discrimination shall be
meted out to the applicants in O.A. No.1139 of 2018. If Ext.P1 is
implemented, substantial prejudice and irreparable injury would
be caused to the petitioner, and hence the petitioner filed the
present original petition.
7. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader
submitted that this Court has already rejected the contentions
taken by the applicants in the connected original applications,
similar to that of the contentions taken by the petitioner herein,
as evident from Ext.P6 judgment dated 28.03.2018 in
O.P.(KAT)No.136 of 2018. Though the petitioner in
O.P.(KAT)No.136 of 2018 and similarly situated persons in the
connected original petitions filed review petitions, claiming error
apparent on the face of the record in Ext. P6 judgment, by the
order dated 06.08.2019 in R.P.No.1109 of 2018 and connected
matters, this Court dismissed all those review petitions.
Therefore, there is nothing to be agitated in this original petition.
8. By Ext.P1 order, the Tribunal has disposed of altogether
13
OP(KAT)No.200 of 2019
2026:KER:50201
ten original applications including the original application filed by
the petitioner herein, the relevant portion of which was extracted
above. From Ext. P6 judgment dated 28.03.2018, we notice that
by the said judgment, one of the original petitions filed by a
similarly placed person, as that of the petitioner, against the
Ext.P1 common order of the Tribunal in O.A. (EKM)No.2081 of
2016 was dismissed by this Court. Paragraph 4 and the
subsequent paragraphs of that judgment read thus;
“4. Heard. The facts in this case are not disputed. Petitioner
admits that he is a temporary employee. His only case is
that he shall not be terminated for accommodating other
employees on temporary basis. As already noticed above,
reliance is placed on the Supreme Court decision in 1992
4 SCC 119 (supra). We notice that, in the decision in
C.Latha v. State and Others [1993 (2) KLJ 497], a
Division Bench of this Court has noticed that in sharp
contrast to the situation in the State of Haryana, the Kerala
State Subordinate Service Rules (KS &SSR for short)
contains a specific provision in Rule 9(a)(i) that permits
temporary appointments for periods not exceeding 180
days. In view of the above provision, it has been held that
temporary appointments in the State service shall be
governed by the provisions contained therein. The dictum
in the said case has been followed by another Division
Bench judgment in Vinod v. State of Kerala [1998 (1)
14OP(KAT)No.200 of 2019
2026:KER:50201
KLT 607].
In view of the Division Bench decisions referred to above,
which are binding on us, we do not find any grounds to
admit this original petition or to grant the reliefs sought for.
As noticed above, in paragraph 19 of the impugned order,
Ext.P2, the KAT has granted the petitioner, the only relief
that is available in the present circumstances.
In the result, the O.P.(KAT) is dismissed.”
9. Though the petitioner in O.P.(KAT)No.136 of 2018 and
similarly situated other petitioners filed R.P.No.1109 of 2018 and
connected review petitions, by the common order dated
06.08.2019, this Court dismissed those review petitions.
Paragraphs 7 and 8 and the last paragraph of that order read
thus;
“7. We have heard the learned counsel for the review
petitioners and have perused the pleadings in the matter,
the facts are not much in dispute. The petitioners were
appointed on contract basis. The contractual appointments
were of short duration and were not against any permanent
cadre, vacancies or posts. In view of the said position the
respondents decided to make temporary appointments
resorting to Employment Exchange. In view of the fact that
other eligible candidates who have registered their names
with Employment Exchange also have a right to be
considered for short-term appointments, there is no
15
OP(KAT)No.200 of 2019
2026:KER:50201
illegality in the Employer terminating the services of the
petitioners, in order to give an opportunity to the other
Employment Exchange candidates. The reasons for taking
such a course is upheld by this Court in C.Latha v. State
and Others [1993 (2) KLJ 497] and in Vinod v. State
of Kerala [1998 (1) KLT 607] and this Court held that
there is no illegality in filling up temporary posts by fresh
hands through the Employment Exchange in order to give
opportunity of employment to others also. It is following the
aforesaid principle of law that the judgments under review
were passed. We find no error in the course resorted to by
the respondents.
8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in the judgment in
Perry Kansagra v. Smriti Madan Kansagra [2019 (3)
SCALE 573] that an error which can be detected only by a
process of reasoning, cannot be treated as an error
apparent on the face of the records warranting review of a
judgment. The Hon’ble Apex Court further held that even
and erroneous finding of fact or error of law committed by
a court, cannot be a reason to exercise review power. It is
only such errors which are apparent on the face of the
order/judgment, which can be corrected by a review of the
judgment. Taking into consideration the facts of the case
and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, we do not
find any error apparent on the face of the judgments under
review.
In view of the above finding these Review Petitions stand
dismissed.”
16
OP(KAT)No.200 of 2019
2026:KER:50201
10. While going through Ext.P6 judgment dated
28.03.2018 in O.P.(KAT)No.136 of 2018 and the order dated
06.08.2019 in R.P.No.1109 of 2018 and connected matters as
extracted above, it is clear that there is nothing to be considered
on merits once again in this original petition, since the contentions
of the petitioner was already decided in the connected matters,
that is in O.P.(KAT)No.136 of 2018 and in R.P.No.1109 of 2018.
Therefore, we find no ground to interfere with the impugned
Ext.P1 order of the Tribunal dated 08.02.2018 in O.A.(EKM)No.239
of 2017 by exercising supervisory jurisdiction.
In the result, the original petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
sks MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE 17 OP(KAT)No.200 of 2019 2026:KER:50201 APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) NO. 200 OF 2019 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY ORDER DATED 8TH FEBRUARY 2018 OF THE HON'BLE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (CAMP SITTING, ERNAKULAM) IN
OA (EKM) NO.239/2017.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE OA(EKM) NO.239 OF 2017 DATED 6TH
FEBRUARY 2017 ALONG WITH ITS ANNEXURES.
ANNEXURE P2(A5) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.TG (1) 15594/16.
Exhibit P2 (A4) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTE NO.CA 197/DA/2016 DT.
28.12.2016.
Exhibit P2 (A3) TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.TV (40979/16/ATMA)
DT.18.12.2016.
Exhibit P2 (A2) TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.CA77/DA/2016
DT.30.09.2016.
Exhibit P2(A1) TRUE COPY OF THE T.A. (1) 10040/13 DT.28.01.2014
OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE MISC.APPLICATION DATED
16.03.2017 ALONG WITH ITS ANNEXURES FILED BY THE
PETITIONER.
Exhibit P3 (A8) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTIONS OF THE LOF BOOK
OF THE VEHICLE MAINTAINED AT THE OFFICE OF THE
4TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P3 (A7) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.AD (1) 44/16-17
DT.02.02.2017 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3(A6) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.AD (2) 44/16-17
DT.09.01.2017 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF ADOPTION MEMO FILED BY THE GOVERNMENT
PLEADER ALONG WITH THE REPLY STATEMENT AND
ANNEXURES FILED IN OA (EKM) NO.1980/2016.
Exhibit P4 (A3) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.Q1/2346/2010 DE DATED
12.05.2017 ISSUED BY THE EMPLOYMENT DIRECTOR.
Exhibit P4 (A2) TRUE COPY OF THE SELECT LIST DATED 17.05.2017.
Exhibit P4(A1) TRUE COPY OF THE PAPER PUBLICATION IN MALAYALA
MANORAMA DAILY DATED 03.05.2017.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER DATED 22.10.2017 FILED
BY THE APPLICANT.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.03.2018 OF THIS
HON’BLE COURT IN OP(KAT) 136/2018.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN OA 1139/2018 DATED
17.07.2018 OF THE LEARNED KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL.
