1. The above Contempt Case has been filed alleging that the respondents have not complied with the directions contained in the judgment of this Court in Contempt Case No.2506 of 2023, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure A3. The petitioners had filed WP(C)No.3481 of 2023 seeking directions for declaring the probation of the petitioners from the date on which they were eligible. By Annexure A1 judgment, this Court directed the competent authority of SIDCO to hear the petitioners and take a decision on the claims for declaration of their probation from the date on which it was eligible to them, adverting specifically to Exhibits P5 and P14 produced along with the writ petition. The 2nd respondent issued orders on 30.10.2023 stating that the declaration of probation can be considered only after getting Government concurrence and that the 2nd respondent is not in a position to decide the matter for lack of approval from the Government. In the above circumstances, the petitioner has preferred Contempt Case No.2506 of 2023, which was considered and disposed of as per the Annexure A3 judgment. This Court held that a person who is appointed in service cannot be continued without his probation being declared ad infinitum. The Court noticed that Annexure A2 Order dated 30.10.2023 issued by the 2nd respondent cannot be justified, and the 2nd respondent ought to have moved the 1st respondent for the fructification of the directions of the Court. The Court recorded the submission of the counsel for the 2nd respondent that the order dated 30.10.2023 stands withdrawn and further directed the 2nd respondent to act implicitly in terms of the judgment, abiding scrupulously by its spirit and tenor. As a corollary, the Court also directed the 1st respondent (State) to consider any request to be made by the 2nd respondent or other competent authority of the SIDCO for implementation of the judgment, however, subject to the applicable Rules and Regulations. The Contempt Case was filed alleging that, pursuant to Annexure A3 judgment, no orders were being passed. The Contempt Case was filed on 27.10.2024. On 28.11.2024, the 1st respondent issued Annexure R1(d) letter to the 2nd respondent. It is stated in the letter that the appointments were made in 2016 by the 2nd respondent without obtaining prior permission from the Government. However, considering the request of the Board of Directors of SIDCO, the appointment of the Senior Manager (Marketing) was found to be in accordance with the rules and regularised. As far as the appointment to the post of Manager (Technical) was concerned, Annexure R1(d) says that the post was in the entry cadre and ought to have been filled up after conducting a written test, and the said procedure had not been followed for the appointment. Regarding the post of Public Relations Officer, it is stated in Annexure R1(d) that the appointment ought to have been made on deputation and without amending the SIDCO Staff Regulations, the appointment was made by direct recruitment without obtaining any sanction from the Government.

2. The petitioners have produced Annexure A6, an order dated 12.02.2016 which had been issued by the Government nominating one Rajagopal K. S., Additional Secretary, Industries (F) Department as the Government nominee to the Interview Board and Group Discussion Committee of SIDCO for the appointment to the posts of Company Secretary, Chief Accounts Officer, Public Relations Officer, Assistant General Manager (Technical), Senior Manager (Marketing) and Manager (Technical). It is submitted that the appointments were made by including a Government nominee in the selection process, and hence the Government cannot now turn around and say that the appointments were without concurrence. It is submitted that the 3rd and 4th petitioners were appointed on 19.02.2016, and petitioners 1 and 2 were appointed on 20.02.2016, after the selection process, which included a Government nominee. This Court had specifically ordered in Annexure A3 judgment that the 1st respondent must consider any request made by the 2nd respondent or other competent authority of the SIDCO for implementation of the judgment. The judgments Annexure A1 and A3 very clearly state the law that a person cannot indefinitely continue without declaring probation. Even though it is stated that Government concurrence was not taken before appointment, the fact remains that the petitioners are continuing in service all this while after their appointment in 2016. The State Government cannot be heard any longer to state that the appointment was without their prior sanction or concurrence, particularly in view of the fact that the appointments were made after a selection process which was carried out in the presence of a Government nominee, appointed as per Annexure A6 order dated 12.02.2016. It is seen from the records that the Annexure A6 order itself was issued based on a request placed on 10.02.2016 by the SIDCO before the Government for deputing a Government nominee.

3. In the above circumstances, the respondents are directed to treat the appointment of the petitioners as valid appointments and pass necessary orders declaring their probation. The stand taken in Annexure R1(d) letter shall not be relied upon for the purpose of passing orders in this regard.

                  The ContemptCase is closedwith the above observations.