The petitioner was appointed as 'Plumber' in the Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) at the Civil Sub Division, Kottarakara on a provisional basis, based on advice issued from the Employment Exchange. Ext.P1 is the Memo with respect to the provisional appointment, which will indicate that the appointment was under Rule 9(a)(i) of the KS and SSR, for a period of 179 days. On the basis of Ext.P1 appointment the petitioner worked in the KSEB from 29.5.1999 to 23.11.1999. The petitioner is a physically handicapped person and he claims reappointment and regularisation based on Ext.P3 Government Order. From Ext.P3 it is evident that the Government have taken a decision to reappoint physically handicapped persons who were appointed under Rule 9(a)(i) within the period from 15.8.1998 to 15.8.1999 and who have completed 179 days, by virtue of GO(P).No.33/2005/SWD dt. 5.3.2005. Benefit of the above said Government order was made applicable also with respect to those persons who were appointed in between the above said period of 15.8.1998 to 15.8.1999, despite the fact that such candidates have not completed 179 days within the above said period. By virtue of Ext.P3 the eligible candidates were required to submit applications to the Employment Officers concerned and the Employment Officers were directed to prepare and send a list of eligible candidates along with their remarks to the 2nd respondent. The petitioner had produced Ext.P4 which is the extract of the list forwarded by the 1st respondent to the 2nd respondent. Name of the petitioner is included in the said list. But in Ext.P4, a remark was noted by the 1st respondent to the effect that despite his appointment under Rule 9(a)(i) the petitioner was paid only on daily wage basis. Hence the Government was requested to decide upon the eligibility of the petitioner for re-appointment under Ext.P3. Despite Ext.P4 list forwarded by the 1st respondent, nothing was heard from the side of the 2nd respondent. Hence the petitioner submitted Ext.P5 representation to the hon'ble Minister for Social Welfare Department. The petitioner thereafter received copy of Ext.P6 letter issued by the 2nd respondent to the 1st respondent calling for a clarification with respect to eligibility of the petitioner. Even though the said letter was issued as early as on 28.1.2008, nothing was heard thereafter. Under the above mentioned circumstances the petitioner is approaching this court seeking appropriate direction to grant the benefit of Ext.P3 Government Order, based on Ext.P4 and P6. 2. In the counter affidavit filed by the additional respondents 3 and 4 it is mentioned that the petitioner's name was not included in the final list forwarded by the 2nd respondent. It is stated that the Board has already published a Gazette Notification including names of the selected candidates forwarded from the Government . In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent it is stated the benefit of Ext.P3 is available only with respect to those who appointed under Rule 9(a)(i) in between 15.8.1998 to 15.8.1999. But the benefit is not available to physically handicapped persons who were working on daily wage basis. It is stated that the petitioner was working only on daily wages and he was not paid salary based on any scale of pay. According to the 2nd respondent it is only by way of mistake that the KSEB had appointed the petitioner under Rule 9 (a)(i). It is stated that the Government have found that the petitioner is not eligible for the benefit of re-appointment and regularisation based on Ext.P3, since his appointment was not under Rule 9(a)(i) of KS and SSR.
3. It is evident from Ext.P1 that the petitioner was appointed against the post of 'Plumber' based on inclusion in the list forwarded by the 1st respondent. Going by provisions contained in Rule 9(a)(i) of KS and SSR temporary appointments contemplated therein is permissible to fill up any vacancy in a post borne on the cadre of a service. The rule does not insist that such appointment should be based on a scale of pay. Therefore, stand taken by the Government that the appointment of the petitioner cannot be considered as Rule 9(a)(i) because he was working on daily wage basis, cannot be accepted. Since it is clearly evident that the appointment was made under Rule 9 (a)(i) to the cadre of 'Plumber', the petitioner is entitled to the benefits contemplated under Ext.P3, if he is otherwise qualified.
4. Hence this court is of the opinion that the matter requires reconsideration by the 2nd respondent. Steps need to be taken to issue necessary directions to the KSEB for reappointment of the partitioner based on the scheme provided under Ext.P3, taking note of the observations contained hereinabove, provided the petitioner is otherwise eligible.
5. Therefore this writ petition is disposed of by directing the 2nd respondent to take an appropriate decision in directing re- appointment of the petitioner and shall be communicated to the KSEB at the earliest possible, at any rate within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, if necessary after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. Needless to observe that the KSEB shall take immediate steps, if any such direction is received, for re- appointment of the petitioner.
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE Pmn/