Petitioners are persons who were evicted from their lands pursuant to a land acquisition proceeding that was initiated for the benefit of the 3rd respondent.
2. Based on the representation preferred by persons like the petitioners, who were evicted from their lands for the purposes of acquisition, the Government by Ext.P1 Order provided for preference to such persons in connection with recruitment to certain specified posts under the 3rd respondent, provided the said persons registered their names with the Employment Exchange. On an earlier occasion, when the petitioners had sought a clarification with regard to their rights under Ext.P1 Government Order, this Court by Ext.P2 judgment had held that, in terms of Ext.P1 Government Order, the petitioners can claim preference in appointment only when the 3rd respondent resorts to recruitment from outside. It was clarified that if the 3rd respondent resorted only to a category change among employees, or a deployment of existing employees for accommodating excess staff, it would not in any manner prejudice the rights of the petitioners under Ext.P1 Government Order.
3. It is the petitioners’ case that even after Ext.P2 judgment, no recruitments have been notified by the 3rd respondent for the posts mentioned in Ext.P1 Government Order. While so, the petitioners’ came to understand, through Ext.P5 recruitment rules in respect of administrative staff under the 2nd respondent, that the post of 'General Worker' was excluded from the posts notified as forming part of the categories of administrative staff under the 2nd respondent. Insofar as the 3rd respondent is a division under the 2nd respondent, it followed that even under the 3rd respondent, the post of 'General Worker' would not be available for recruitment for future periods. By a note under Rule 3 of Ext.P5 recruitment rules, it was made clear that such of those categories in the administrative staff, as were not specifically included in the rules, but were existing in the various centres, would continue until the superannuation of the incumbents. It followed therefore, that as far as the posts of 'General Worker' under the 3rd respondent is concerned, by virtue of Ext.P5 Rules, as made applicable to the 3rd respondent, there would be no recruitment to the post of 'General Worker' subsequent to the coming into force of Ext.P5 rules and further, those persons who were occupying the post of 'General Worker' under the 3rd respondent, would be retained as such under the 3rd respondent till their superannuation. The petitioners, however, came to understand that there was a proposal by the 3rd respondent to re-designate some of the 'General Workers' as 'Helpers'. The petitioners therefore approached this Court challenging the said move of the 3rd respondent on the ground that, if the 3rd respondent was permitted to resort to the re-designation of 'General Workers' as 'Helpers', it would adversely affect the rights of the petitioners’ under Ext.P1 notification, in that there would be no vacancy in the post of 'Helper' under the 3rd respondent Organisation for filling through direct recruitment. The Writ Petition has been filed impugning Ext.P6 communication of the 2nd respondent to the 3rd respondent informing it of the fact that the 2nd respondent had approved the recommended of the managing committee of the 3rd respondent to consider 'General Workers' for re-designating as 'Helpers' in the existing vacancies in the 3rd respondent, without any change in their pay scales as well as in the current duties and responsibilities. There is also a prayer for direction to respondents 2 and 3 to appoint the petitioners as 'Helpers' pursuant to Ext.P1 Government Order.
4. Counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent wherein it is stated that consequent to the notification of Ext.P5 Rules with effect from 19.06.2003 the post of 'General Worker' is not included in the posts categorised as administrative staffs and therefore, there would be no future recruitment to the said post under the 3rd respondent. It is pointed out that representations had been received from 'General Workers' for re-designation as 'Helpers' and it was in response to the said representation that the decision in Ext.P6 was taken. In the additional affidavit, filed in response to a specific query from this Court as to the need for re-designation of 'General Workers' as 'Helpers', it is stated as follows at paragraphs 3 and 4:
“It is humbly submitted that, though the Non- Muster Roll (NMR) Workers, were regularized as 'General Workers', in tune with the Government Order No. 106/85/PW&T dated 17.09.1985, as found in the above mentioned Order of this Honourable Court, the said 'General Workers' still remain to be left out of the category of employees of KSCSTE, listed as per Exhibit P5 Rules. With a view to absorb the 'General Workers' in to the category prescribed in new KSCSTE rules, the re-designation is ordered by Executive Committee (Highest decision making body of KSCSTE) vide their letter no. 3697/C/2011 dt.29th December, 2011. Again, as there is likelihood of implementation of Pension for employees of KSCSTE soon, the re-designation is ordered also with a view to ensure the benefit of pension to the 'General Workers' also by bringing them in to the main stream, so as to avoid any confusion in this regard in future.
It is also in response with the long pending request from the side of the 'General Workers', to make them entitled to have the same uniform with the colour of 'light pink', as that of the 'Helpers', instead of the colour of 'Kakky', which is set for the 'General Workers' alone in the entire institution of CWRDM, the re-designation of the 'General Workers' as Helpers is intended to be. Reiterating the fact that, the proposed re-designation will not affect the employment opportunities of any of the eligible land acquisition evictees as per the Government Order (MS) No.11/83/LAR dated Trivandrum 26.2.1983, it is humbly submitted that, the above Writ Petition (Civil) is devoid of any merits, and hence, the interim stay imposed in the above case is liable to be vacated, and the above case itself is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs to the Respondents.”
5. I have heard Sri. P.V. Kunhikrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri.George Zachariah, Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of 2nd and 3rd respondents and learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the 1st respondent.
6. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, as also the submissions made across the Bar, I find that this is a case where the 2nd and 3rd respondents have taken a decision to effect a re-designation of the post of 'General Worker', that was in existence under the 3rd respondent, as 'Helper'. The said decision is one that was taken for the purposes of accommodating the 'General Workers' under the 3rd respondent to the post of 'Helper', which carries the same scale of pay as that of the 'General Worker' and where the nature of duties to be performed by the worker are also the same. The decision was one that was taken to try and provide pensionary benefits to 'General Workers', who would otherwise not be entitled to the said benefits. As far as the post of 'Helper' is concerned, since it is a post that is included in the post of administrative staff in Ext.P5 Rules, that has been notified, it is one of the posts in respect of which there is a proposal under consideration, for introducing pensionary benefits. It was under these circumstances that the 3rd respondent was of the view that, if a category change is effected for those persons continuing in the post of 'General Worker' and they are re-designated as 'Helpers', then they would also stand a chance to avail the benefit of the proposed pension scheme, as and when introduced. Similarly, it was also felt necessary to resort to a category change so as to ensure uniformity in the scale of pay, service benefits and also the dress code for both categories of employees by the said re- designation.
7. In my view, these decisions fall within the realm of decisions that can be taken by an employer in connection with the administration of his establishment. The said decisions, being in the nature of policy decisions of an employer, will not normally be subjected to judicial scrutiny by this Court in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This Court will interfere with the policy decisions of the 2nd and 3rd respondents only if it is demonstrated to be irrational or illegal, thereby warranting an intervention under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the instant case, my attention has not been drawn to any such situation as would warrant an interference with the policy decisions taken by the 2nd and 3rd respondents.
8. I must, however, deal with the contention of the petitioner that by resorting to the re-designation, the petitioners would be deprived of a chance of getting employment to vacancies in the post of 'Helper', pursuant to the rights accrued on them, under Ext.P1 Government Order. In this connection, I must note that by Ext.P2 judgment, this Court while dealing with the rights of the petitioner under Ext.P1 Government Order, has also clarified that their rights would be confined to a situation where the 2nd and 3rd respondents resorted to a recruitment from outside, and not in a situation where the 2nd and 3rd respondents resorted to a designation change among existing employees, or a deployment of excess employees to other posts. In that view of the matter, therefore, insofar as Ext.P6 order contemplates only a re-designation of an existing category of employees as 'Helpers' for the purposes of affording them benefits which they otherwise would not have obtained during their service tenure, I do not think the petitioners can impugn Ext.P6 decision of the 2nd and 3rd respondents on the ground that it is prejudicial to their interests. Further, I am of the view that the rights of the petitioner, traceable to Ext.P1 Government Order, are not indefeasible rights guaranteeing an employment under the 2nd and 3rd respondents. By virtue of Ext.P2 judgment, as also Ext.P1 Government Order, the petitioners will have to necessarily await an advertisement for recruitment through Employment Exchange, to any of the notified posts under Ext.P1 Government Order, to stake their claim for appointment to a vacancy in the said posts. Resultantly, I do not find any valid ground to interfere with the decision of the 2nd and 3rd respondents, as contained in Ext.P6 communication that is impugned in the Writ Petition.
The Writ Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
A.K. JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE jjj