Anandavally P.V. and others v. Kannur University and The Vice-Chancellor, Kannur University

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013/27TH KARTHIKA, 1935 ## WP(C).No. 25305 of 2013 (K) ---------------------------- PETITIONERS: - --------------- 1. ANANDAVALLY P.V (REG.NO.27366) PADMAVILASAM, M.M BAZAR POST PERUL SOUTH, KANNUR, PIN 670 306. 2. AJITHA C.K (REG.NO.27776) THOLLAPPURATH HOUSE, CHOOLIYAD MALAPPATTAM POST, KANNUR, PIN 670 631. 3. ANITHA K (REG.NO.33039) ANITHALAYAM, KADAMBERY, KANUL POST KANNUR, PIN 670 564. 4. NAMITHA K (REG.NO.32050) NAMITHA NIVAS, KOODALI POST, THALAMUNDA KANNUR, PIN 670 592. 5. ARAVINDAKSHAN NADUKKANDIYIL (REG.NO.30611) NADUKKANDIYIL HOUSE, KAKKAYANGAD POST KANNUR PIN 670 673. 6. REESHMA C.U (REG.NO.27685) NETHARAVATHI HOUSE, PATTANNUR POST, MUTTANNUR KANNUR, PIN 670 595. 7. SHYLAJA K (REG.NO.29189) KUNNUMMAL HOUSE, PATTANUR POST MUTTANUR, EDAYANUR, KANNUR PIN 670 595. 8. VEENA P.V (REG.NO.27488) W/O.PRAKASHAN V.P, ATHIYADAM PAYANGADI POST, KANNUR, PIN 670 303. 9. SINDHU N.P (REG.NO.26614) KANAPRATH HOUSE, KOORENTE PEEDIKA MUZHAPPALA POST, KANNUR, PIN 670 611. 10. JASMIN P.C (REG.NO.31173) JESU NIVAS, C.M NAGAR, PILATHARA POST KANNUR, PIN 670 501. 11. PRABHA JOSE (REG.NO.29452) KAYATHINKARA HOUSE SREEKANDAPURAM POST, KANNUR, PIN 670 631. WP(C).No. 25305 of 2013 (K) 2 12. DEEPA M (REG.NO.26161) DEEPTHAM, CHALAD POST, PADANNAPPALAM KANNUR, PIN 670 014. 13. VARIJA K (REG.NO.31601), W/O.P.SIVAPPU, JOINT REGISTRAR KANNUR UNIVERSITY, UNIVERSITY CAMPUS POST, KANNUR 670 567. 14. M.T.JYOTHILAKSHMI (REG.NO.30892) JYOTHISS, EAST NADA, TRICHAMBARAM TALIPARAMBA POST, KANNUR, PIN 670 141. 15. VIDYA T (REG.NO.22535), NEELANJANAM, VILLUNNIYAL THENJIPALAM P.O, MALAPPURAM 673 636. 16. AMRUTHA P (REG.NO.28773) - , KAVITHA BHAVAN, KURUVA KADALAYI POST, KANNUR, PIN 670 007. 17. GEETHA PAYYARATTA (REG.NO.26620) RERMAL HOUSE, KOTTILA POST, EZHOME KANNUR PIN 670 334. 18. SHEEJA C.N (REG.NO.26473) MULLA, AROLI POST, VADESWARAM KANNUR, PIN 670 566. 19. DIVYA C.K (REG.NO.31813) VIPANJIKA, PANDYALAPARAMBA MAMBARAM POST, KANNUR, PIN 670 741. 20. SRUTHI PRASANNAN (REG.NO.26290) RAM NIVAS, KADANNAPPALLY POST CHANDAPPURA, KANNUR, PIN 670 501. 21. RAJISHA THUNDIYIL (REG.NO.31569) ALAKKAL HOUSE, MURINGERI POST, KANNUR PIN 670 612. BY ADVS.SRI.C.K.PRASAD SMT.V.V.ASHA SRI.ABHILASH S.FRANCIS RESPONDENTS: - ----------------- 1. THE KANNUR UNIVERSITY REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, MANGATTUPARAMBA KANNUR 670 567. ## 2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR KANNUR UNIVERSITY, MANGATTUPARAMBA, KANNUR 670 567. BY SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED, SC, KANNUR UNIVERSITY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-11-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 25305 of 2013 (K) ---------------------------- ## APPENDIX ## PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS ---------------------------- EXHIBIT P1. COPY OF THE MINUTES DATED 01.11.10 HELD AT THE OFFICE OF THE PRO-VICE CHANCELLOR, KANNUR UNIVERSITY. EXHIBIT P2. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.36126/2010 DATED 13.12.10 ON THE FILES OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXHIBIT P3. COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 09.11.11 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE IST PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P3(A). COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 09.11.11 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P3(B). COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 08.06.11 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P3(C).COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 08.06.11 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P3(D).COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 08.06.11 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE 5TH PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P3(E).COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 09.11.11 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE 6TH PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P3(F).COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 09.11.11 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE 7TH PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P3(G).COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 09.11.11 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE 8TH PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P3(H).COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 09.11.11 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE 9TH PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P3(I).COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 09.11.11 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE 10TH PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P3(J).COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 13.4.12 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE 11TH PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P3(K).COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 13.4.12 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE 12TH PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P3(L).COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 13.4.12 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE 13TH PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P3(M).COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 13.4.12 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE 14TH PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P3(N).COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 2.6.12 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE 15TH PETITIONER. WP(C).No. 25305 of 2013 (K) EXHIBIT P3(O).COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 2.6.12 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE 16TH PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P3(P)..COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 29.9.12 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE 17TH PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P3(Q).COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 29.9.12 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE 18TH PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P3(R).COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 29.9.12 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE 19TH PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P3(S).COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 29.9.12 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE 20TH PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P3(T).COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 29.9.12 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE 21ST PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P4. COPY OF THE CHART PREPARED SHOWING THE TANK NUMBER, DATE OF JOINING AND EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATIONS OF THE PETITIONERS. EXHIBIT P5. COPY OF THE INFORMATION OBTAINED UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT DATED 29.4.13. EXHIBIT P5(A).COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT DATED 15.3.13. EXHIBIT P6. COPY OF THE REPORTED JUDGMENT IN STATE OF HARIYANA VS. M.P.SHARMA (AIR 1994 SC 1804). EXHIBIT P7. COPY OF THE REPORTED JUDGMENT IN 1996(2) KLT 306 IN KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION RESERVE CONDUCTORS RANK HOLDERS ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS VS. STATE. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL ------------------------------- // TRUE COPY // TKS P.S. TO JUDGE ## **C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J.** ------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.25305 of 2013 ------------------------------Dated 18[th] November, 2013 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioners were candidates included in the main list published by the University of Kannur for appointment to the post of Assistant. Earlier, this Court passed an order in W.P.(C)No.21142 of 2010 interdicting the University from effecting appointments on regular basis beyond the notified vacancies viz., 45. However, considering the increasing work load the University proposed to make appointments on daily wage basis from the ranked list and for that purpose passed a resolution as is obvious from Ext.P1. A similarly situated person viz., a rank holder in the same ranked list approached this court earlier by filing W.P.(C)No.36126 of 2010 and it was disposed of as per Ext.P2 judgment dated 13.12.2010, taking note of the submissions made by the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents that it was necessary to engage persons considering the work load involved, with a direction to the University to take a decision on the recommendation made by the Committee of the Administration Branch, after taking into account all the relevant facts and circumstances. The case of the petitioners is that subsequent to Ext.P2, Ext.P3 series of memos were issued to petitioners 1 to 21. In short, their contention is that on the strength of Ext.P3 series of memos issued by the University they were WP(C).No.25305/2013 2 engaged as Assistants on daily wage basis and they are continuing as such under the respondents. It is their further contention that on the strength of Ext.P3 series of memos they are entitled to continue under the first respondent University as Assistants till the posts presently held by them cease to exist. A perusal of Ext.P3 series of memos would reveal that it was made clear thereunder that persons like the petitioners engaged would not get any claim or preference, whatsoever, for regular appointment on the strength of such temporary/daily wage engagement. The daily wage engagement thus offered was purely temporary for a period not exceeding 179 days, subject to availability of vacancies. True that, as per Ext.P3 series, it was further ordered that the service of the persons so engaged would be terminated as and when vacancies cease to exist. However, a scanning of Ext.P3 series of memos would reveal that they were issued pursuant to the decision to prepare a panel of candidates willing to work as Assistants on daily wage basis against temporary vacancies for a period not exceeding 179 days subject to the availability of vacancies. Evidently, the petitioners are continuing beyond the period of 179 days and as noticed hereinbefore, their contention is that by virtue of Ext.P3 series they are entitled to continue to hold the post on temporary basis subject to the terms in Ext.P3 series till WP(C).No.25305/2013 3 vacancies cease to exist. Be that as it may, the contention presently taken by the petitioners is that there is a move on the part of the respondents to terminate their provisional appointments. The further contention is that being appointees from the ranked list which was drawn pursuant to a notification issued by the University for appointment to the post of Assistant despite the expiry of the said ranked list, in the light of the decisions of this Court in Ext.P2 and in **K.P.S.C. Reserve Conductors Rank Holders Assn. & Ors.** v. **State (1996(2) KLT 306)** and the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in **State of Haryana and others** v. **Mahabir Prasad Sharma and others (AIR 1994 SC 1804),** they are entitled to continue on provisional basis till regular hands joined duty. As noticed hereinbefore, it is stated in the writ petition that it was proposed by the Syndicate and University to terminate the provisional appointments of the petitioners and to replace them by another set of daily wage employees indiscriminately to satisfy their political colour and aims. Further it is stated therein that for effecting such back door appointment it is understood that the Syndicate members are collecting bio-data from various persons and several news items have already appeared in various dailies in this regard. Some of the Department Heads have already stopped the operation of the duty register kept for WP(C).No.25305/2013 4 the daily wage Assistants. Hence, the petitioners apprehend that soon they would be shown the doors even without serving any termination order and in such eventuality they would be left with no time to raise fruitful challenge before any appropriate forum. Thus a scanning of the various contentions raised in this writ petition would reveal that it is nothing but an apprehension of termination that formed the foundation for this writ petition. There cannot be any doubt with respect to the fact that an apprehension cannot be a foundation for a writ petition and any such writ petition cannot be entertained by this Court. If the petitioners have any right whatsoever, in terms of Ext.P2 judgment, the decision of this Court in **K.P.S.C. Reserve Conductors Rank Holders Assn. & Ors.** v. **State (1996(2) KLT 306)** and the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in **State of Haryana and others** v. **Mahabir Prasad Sharma and others (AIR 1994 SC 1804)** and if ignoring the rights, if any, they were terminated, definitely, the petitioners would be at liberty to challenge such termination, in accordance with law. At the same time, I am of the view that on vague contentions, that too, against the Syndicate of a University and University, as has been evident from the statements made in paragraph 7 of the writ petition and based merely on such apprehension this Court will not be justified in entertaining this writ WP(C).No.25305/2013 5 petition. I am of the view that this writ petition is moved prematurely. In the said circumstances, this writ petition is liable to fail and accordingly, it is dismissed. However, it is made clear that dismissal of this writ petition will not stand in the way of the petitioners to approach this Court at the appropriate time, in accordance with law, to redress any grievance relating any justiciable claim. Sd/C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS