1. This case presents startling and singular factual circumstances and exposes subterfugal attempt to override judicial orders through ingeniously devised plan.

2. The appellants were initially appointed in the services of the respondent-Warehousing Corporation (for short, 'Corporation') in the year 2006; but, were then terminated in the year 2007, for the reason  that  such  appointments  were  illegal  and irregular-it having been made in excess of approved strength and to additional vacancies created by the “Executive Committee” of the Corporation, without any competence to do so.

3. Some of the appellants and others took up the issue before this Court in a Writ Petition, which was dismissed; against which, Writ Appeal No.1320 of 2010 and connected matters, were filed.

4. Interestingly, pending consideration of the Writ Appeals by this Court, the Corporation passed multiple resolutions, including Ext.P6 dated 22.03.2013, resolving to appoint the very same persons who were earlier terminated, against “existing vacancies”, but, only after obtaining the permission of this Court in the said Appeals.

5. It is vitally relevant that the Writ Appeals aforementioned were dismissed, through the judgment dated 26.08.2013; and the situation remained in such status for sometime.

6. While so, the 5th appellant herein, approached this Court again, through W.P.(C) No.15537 of 2013, seeking a very innocuous plea, that her representation seeking fresh appointment to available vacancies - produced as Ext.P6 therein - be directed to be considered by the Corporation. This was allowed.

7. The afore lead to immediate appointment of the 5th appellant, followed by appointments to the other appellants.

8. It is argued by Sri.George Cherian, learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Smt.K.S.Santhi-learned counsel for the appellants, that his clients, after having been appointed in the year 2014, had been given all benefits consequential to it, including declaration of probation, increments etc.; and that, it is being so that, without any reason, Ext.P13 resolution was adopted by the Corporation, resolving to again terminate them from service.

9. The learned Senior Counsel argued that, when the appointments of his clients were beyond board and as per law, a resolution to terminate them in the manner, as has been done through Ext.P13, was impermissible; but, that the learned Single Bench did not consider this in such perspective, but to find against his clients; thus constraining them to file this appeal. He prayed that this appeal be, therefore, allowed; and the impugned judgment set aside, as also Ext.P13 resolution of the Corporation.

10. Sri. Gikku Jacob, learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent-Corporation, in response, submitted that the appointments and grant of consequential benefits to the appellants herein were made and done by the erstwhile Board of Directors of the Corporation; and that this led to widespread allegations against them, particularly on account of the facts noticed supra by this Court leading to criminal charges being pressed against them. He, however, added that he is not aware of the final result of the investigations; but asserted that the subsequent Board was fully justified in having adopted Ext.P13 resolution, since the appointments of the appellants were made in breach of all legal propriety and with unmistakably questionable motives. He maintained that the learned Single Judge has understood the factual scenario correctly; thus praying that this appeal be dismissed.

11. We began this judgment with a preface that there are certain singular circumstances involved because, in normal circumstances, none of the appellants would have been able to obtain employment with the Corporation, on account of the trail of events that happened prior to it.

12. Pertinently, it is unequivocally admitted that the appellants were initially appointed in the year 2006, to be terminated in the year 2007; leading to litigation before this Court, which finally ended against them in the judgment in Writ Appeal No.1320 of 2010 and connected matters.

13. As noticed above, even when the above said Writ Appeals were pending, a resolution was adopted by the Corporation, to again appoint the appellants and others to the very same vacancies; but only after obtaining the permission of this Court.

14. It is conceded by Sri.George Cherian, learned Senior Counsel, that such permission was orally applied for before the learned Division Bench-while it was disposing of the Writ Appeals-but that such was declined. Irrefutably, therefore, appointments of the appellants, thereafter, could not have been done, except through a subsequent process as per law.

15. However, the stratagem adopted-by the then Board of Directors of the Corporation-which one would be justified in suspecting, was for confutative reasons-was that, one of the appellants filed a Writ Petition before this Court, to obtain Ext.P7 judgment, wherein, her individual representation, seeking fresh appointment, was directed to be considered. It is doubtless that, in normal circumstances, such a representation would have been dismissed by the Corporation for the reasons already noticed; but, in this case, it lead to a completely different outcome.

16. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.15537 of 2013, namely the 5th appellant herein, was thus appointed; and consequently, all the other appellants were allowed to follow suit. It is, thereafter, that their probation was declared and other service benefits offered to them.

17. The Corporation-albeit through the subsequent Board of Directors-thereafter, appears to have waken and to mend ways, to issue Ext.P13 order terminating the services of the appellants. It is thus that this matter is before us.

18. In the totality of the circumstances noticed above, it becomes ineluctable that no empathy can be offered to the appellants or to the Corporation; and we hold both to be equally responsible for the situation that has now come to be.

19. In any event, it is admitted that the appellants were all removed from service in the year 2007 itself, having been unable to obtain any interim relief from the Court. Therefore, it would brooke to no justification, even on considerations of indulgence–assuming such are attracted-to bring them back.

20. Axiomatically, we cannot find the impugned resolution namely Ext.P13, to be in error since it was a necessary reactive corollary to events happened prior to its adoption.

We close, recording our strongest disapproval and angst at the conduct of the Corporation; but since we are told that criminal actions were initiated against their then Board of Directors, we choose to say nothing further, lest, our observations affect such proceedings.

This appeal is, consequently, dismissed.