The petitioners then approached the Supreme Court which granted them liberty to challenge the decision of the Administrative Committee in accordance with the law.
The statement filed on behalf of the Kerala High Court contended that the appellants were appointed on a contractual basis and they are not entitled to any other right, privilege or preferential claim for appointment or re-appointment to any service, any claim for pension, or any sort of benefit by virtue of their appointment under the said agreement.
The reply affidavit filed by the petitioners contended that the court managers in the High Court and the District Courts were appointed through a common selection process, indicating that the nature of their responsibilities and duties were similar in nature.
However, the single-judge held that the Supreme Court judgment was specifically for court managers of District Court.
The division bench, however, set aside the same and decided in favor of the petitioners.
“Though order of the Apex Court was in respect of the court managers of district judiciary, the same yardstick can be applied in the case of court managers of High Court also, since all the court managers were selected through a common selection procedure, by way of an interview,” the division bench ruled.
The petitioners were represented by advocates S Ajith and K Parameswar.
The respondents were represented by advocates Elvin Peter PJ, Ganesh, Suvin R Menon and Manoj Kumar.
Source: Barandbench
