THE PRINCIPLE THAT A TEMPORARY EMPLOYEE SHALL NOT BE REPLACED BY ANOTHER TEMPORARY EMPLOYEE AND THAT HE SHALL BE REPLACED ONLY BY A REGULAR EMPLOYEE, IS A PRINCIPLE CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWED BY THE APEX COURT AND VARIOUS HIGH COURTS:KERALA HIGH COURT
The High Court of Kerala passed a judgement on 14 February, 2023 which stated that a temporary employee shall not be replaced by another temporary employee and that he shall be replaced only by a regular employee, is a principle consistently followed by the apex court and various high courts it was stated in the case of Cochin University Of Science And Technology Vs Suja M.S (Writ Appeal Nos.1441, 1446 & 1449 of 2021) which was passed by the single judge bench comprising of Justice P.B.Suresh Kumar And Justice Sophy Thomas
FACTS OF THE CASE:
The petitioners in the writ petitions were persons included in the ranked list published by the Cochin University of Science and Technology (the University) on 28.12.2018 for appointment to the post of Sweeper-cum- Cleaner. As the ranks secured by the petitioners were not sufficient to secure regular appointments having regard to the number of vacancies, they were not appointed. Nevertheless, the petitioners were later engaged by the University as Sweeper-cum-Cleaner on daily wage basis in a few temporary posts. In terms of an order, a person cannot be engaged on daily wage basis for a term exceeding 240 days. When steps were taken to disengage the petitioners on completing their term, they approached this Court in a writ petition claiming permanency, and the said writ petition was disposed of by this Court directing the University to consider their representation. Pursuant to the direction aforesaid, the University issued another order rejecting the representation submitted by the petitioners taking the stand that they cannot be permitted to continue beyond 240 days. The order was under challenge in the writ petitions. Among others, the petitioners sought in the writ petitions, a declaration that they are entitled to be engaged on daily wage basis till regular appointments are made by the University.
JUDGEMENT OF THE CASE
In the said circumstances that the learned Single Judge chose to direct the University to permit them to continue until the temporary posts exist. It is a direction issued in exercise of the discretionary and equitable jurisdiction vested in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Such discretionary orders are not interfered with in appeal under normal circumstances, especially when interference would result in inequitable results.The writ appeals, in the circumstances, are devoid of merits and was dismissed.
PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY ROSHNI SABU, KERALA LAW ACADEMY LAW COLLEGE.