AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Alexander Thomas, J
The instant appeal has been filed to impugn the judgment dated 19.06.2020 rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C) No.9005 of
2020 filed by the 1st respondent herein. Vide G.O. (MS) No.78/2011 dated 22.12.2011, the appellants-Kerala State Road Transport Corporation
('KSRTC' for short) was directed by the State Government to regularize the service of provisional employees on the Rolls of the said Corporation,
who have completed 10 years of service as on 22.12.2011. Though the writ petitioner's name was originally included in the said list of provisional
employees eligible for such regularization, his service was not so regularised, on the ground that he does not possess the requisite qualification of
Secondary School Leaving Certificate (SSLC). On being aggrieved thereby, the writ petitioner was constrained to approach this Court by instituting a
writ proceeding as WP(C) No.18044/2013, in which this Court has rendered Ext.P1 judgment on 30.05.2014, holding that the petitioner cannot be
deemed regularisation on the ground that he lacks the qualification prescribed to hold the post of 'Reserve Conductor'. Accordingly, this Court issued
directions as per Ext.P1 judgment, ordering that the KSRTC shall issue necessary orders regularising the service of the petitioner, if he fulfills all other
eligible criteria, without any further delay. Thereafter, the appellant-KSRTC has complied with the directions issued in Ext.P1 judgment by issuing
Exts.P2 and P3 orders dated 09.12.2014 & 27.12.2014 respectively, directing the regularization of the service of the petitioner on the Rolls of the
KSRTC, as otherwise he has possessed all other eligible qualifications. It is also ordered in Ext.P2 that the petitioner's service will stand regularised
with effect from 22.12.2011 [the date of issuance of the above said G.O. ordering regularization]. It appears that after rendering of Ext.P1 judgment
by this Court on 30.05.2014, the State Government had issued Annexure A1 letter dated 19.07.2014 ordering that in the case of provisional employees,
who do not have the minimum qualification, then their service can be regularised only after they acquiring all the said qualifications. It is pursuant to
Annexure 1, directions issued by the State Government on 19.07.2014 that the appellant-KSRTC has thereafter issued Ext.P8 order dated 15.05.2019
directing that the service of the writ petitioner can be regularised only with effect from 29.10.2014, which is the date on which he had subsequently
acquired the qualification of S.S.L.C. Being aggrieved by the said impugned order in Ext.P8, whereby his date of regularization is revised from
22.12.2011 [date of issuance of the regularization G.O.] to 29.10.2014 [date of acquisition of the qualification] and the consequential steps taken for
recovery etc., he had approached this Court by filing the instant WP(C) No.9005/2020. The learned Single Judge as per the impugned judgment
rendered on 19.06.2020, has allowed the pleas of the petitioner in the abovesaid WP(C) No.9005/2020 by holding that after the authorities concerned
have already suffered a judgment as per Ext.P1 directing that the petitioner is legally entitled for regularization on the basis of the said G.O. dated
22.12.2011 even though he lacks the qualification of S.S.L.C., it is not open to the authorities concerned to reopen the said issue and to revise the date
of regularization, more so particularly since Ext.P1 judgment has become final and conclusive. It is this judgment of the learned Single Judge in WP(C)
No.9004/2020, that is under challenge in this intra-court appeal.
One of the main contentions of Sri.T.P.Sajan, learned standing counsel for the KSRTC, appearing for the appellant authorities is that the State
Government is empowered to issue directions in the nature of Annexure A1 dated 19.07.2014 to the KSRTC by virtue of the powers conferred under
Section 34 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, which is an Act framed by the Parliament and that therefore no interference is called for in the
impugned order in Ext.P1 and the learned Single Judge is went wrong in rendering the impugned judgment.
After hearing both sides, it is to be noted that both the KSRTC as well as the State Government were parties in Ext.P1 judgment and they have
suffered the said adverse judgment as per Ext.P1, wherein it was held that the writ petitioner is entitled for regularization based on the said G.O. dated
22.12.2011, even though he does not hold the requisite qualification of S.S.L.C. provided he has all the other requisite qualifications. That after having
suffered the said judgment-Ext.P1, the same has become final and conclusive, it is not open to the KSRTC as well as the State Government, who
were parties thereto, to take the present stand and that they are thus barred by res judicata for raising such a plea.
Accordingly, we are of the considered view that the impugned judgment cannot be faulted, as being illegal or unreasonable in any manner and
would not deserve appellate interdiction at the hands of this Court, more so particularly, in this intra-court appeal.
The Writ Appeal fails and the same is dismissed.