K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J. 1. The petitioner is admittedly a temporary appointee under Rule 9(a)(i) of the General Rules in the K.S. and S.S.R. against the post of Opthalmic Assistant in Primary Health Centre, Cherukunnu. Ext. P1 is the appointment order. Ext. P1 shows that the appointment is for a period of one year. Temporary appointment can only be for a period of one year in terms of the said rule, as the post is one existing in paramedical wing in Health Service Department. The petitioner has approached this Court contending that under the proviso to Rule 9(a)(iii) of the said rules, replacement of temporary appointees shall be in the order of seniority based on length of temporary service. In other words, as and when temporary hand are ousted, persons with longer tenure shall be ousted first in preference to those having lesser. The petitioner, therefore, contends that before her temporary service is terminated, those who are having lengthier service shall be terminated first. The petitioner also submits that there is no rank list prepared by the Public Service Commission for regular appointment to the said post and she is in poor financial condition. The termination of service will result in misery to her and her family. Therefore, she shall be continued in service and shall not be terminated from service otherwise than to accommodate the candidates advised by P.S.C. If she is terminated otherwise, it would be arbitrary, the petitioner contends. It is in the above circumstances, the petitioner, has approached this Court seeking a direction to retain her in service and not to terminate her service except for accommodating P.S.C.
hands.
2. None of the contentions of the petition can be accepted. As per Rule 9(a)(i) of the General Rules in K.S. & S.S.R., temporary appointments are effected in the exigencies of situation when there is no list prepared by the P.S.C. for regular appointment. According to the said rule, the said appointment can be only for 179 days, except the teaching posts and posts in paramedical wing. In the case of such posts, the period of appointment is limited as one year. It is also provided in Rule 9(a)(i) itself that persons who had one year of appointment cannot be continued or re-appointed in the office under the same appointing authority. That provides a prohibition against continuance of persons more than one year. Moreover, as per Ext. P1 also, the appointment is for a maximum period of one year. In such circumstances, the petitioner cannot, on any count seek continuance beyond the period of one year mentioned in Rule 9(a)(i) or in Ext. P1 appointment order.
3. Even if there is no list prepared by the P.S.C. for regular appointment, it cannot improve the case of the Petitioner for continuance in service beyond the period of one year. So, the petitioner cannot get a direction for continuance in service or not to tcrmiaate her service except for accommodating P.S.C., hands.
4. It is true that proviso to Rule 9(a)(iii) provides that temporary hands having lengthier service shall be ousted first from service in preference to those having lesser length of service. But the lengthier service or lesser length of service shall be counted only within the maximum period of appointment as permissible under Rule 9(a)(i), namely, one year in the case of the post which the petitioner occupies. In other words, the impact of the proviso to Rule 9(a)(iii) is that when there are more incumbents holding temporary appointment and if anyone has to be terminated, it shall be the person which lengthier service among them and such lengthier service has to be taken only within the maximum period of temporary appointment in terms of Rule 9(a)(i), namely, one year. When persons cannot be continued as per the said rule beyond one year, merely because one or two persons arc continuing illegally for more than one year, it cannot be contended that such illegality shall he perpetuated by continuing all the persons like the petitioners. The arbitrariness or discri-mination can be contended only within reference to the permissible limits as per the rules. So, the contention with reference to the proviso to Rule 9(a)(iii) also does not improve the case of the petitioner for continuance in service. It is also submitted that there are no quali-fied hands registered with the Employment Exchange for being appointed against the said post. In such circumstances, the rule also provides that such hands can be re-advised by the employment exchange. So, if there are not sufficient qualified hands for being advised for temporary appointment necessarily, the petitioner will get a re-advise from the exchange.
In such circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to any of the reliefs prayed for in the original petition. The original petition fails. Dismissed. No costs.