Babu C.J. Chiravathur and others v. Registrar, Kerala Veterinary and Animal Sciences University and others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JULY 2013/13TH ASHADHA, 1935 WP(C).No. 14918 of 2013 (L) ---------------------------- PETITIONERS: - --------------- 1. BABU.C.J. CHIRAVATHUR HOUSE, KUTTANKULANGARA LANE POONKUNNAM.P.O., THRISSUR. 2. SANISH.A.S. AMBATT HOUSE, C/O.KULANGARA BENNY, VELLANIKKARA.P.O. 3. SURESH BABU.P.R, S/O.RAGHAVAN.P.V, PULINGUZHI HOUSE, P.O.MANNUTHI, KUTTICHIRA, PATTALAKKUNNU, PIN-680 651. 4. RADHAKRISHNAN.A KALARICKAL HOUSE, NETTISSERY.P.O., THRISSUR. 5. REKHA.A - AANAKKOTTIL HOUSE, P.O.AYYAPPANKAVU, MULAYAM THRISSUR. 6. RAHMATH.T.C, KARUPPAMVEETTIL HOUSE, PANANCHAKAM, P.O.MANNUTHI, THRISSUR. 7. PRASANNA.C.G MAILAPPAN HOUSE, P.O.KAINNUR. 8. RADHA.K.V, THENNATTUMADATHIL HOUSE, VELLANIKKARA WEST, MADAKKATHRA.P.O., PIN-680 651. 9. RENIL ABI, CHITHALAN HOUSE, KACHERY, P.O.ANJERY JANAPRIYA ROAD, THRISSUR. 10. MINI.E.P, EDATHARA HOUSE, P.O.MANNUTHY, PATTALAKKUNNU. 11. JITHIN.C.T CHIRAYATH HOUSE, AYYAPPANKAVU.P.O., MULAYAM. 12. OMANA.V.V, D/O.VELAYUDHAN.V.K, PUZHAKKADAVIL, PATTIKKADU.P.O., VATTAKKALLU, THRISSUR-680 652. 13. JISHA.M.R, D/O.RAMACHANDRAN.M.S, AYYAPPATH HOUSE, P.O.AYYAPPANKAVU, MULAYAM-680 751. WP(C).No. 14918 of 2013 (L) : 2 : 14. SALAM.P.M., PUTHUVEETTIL HOUSE, PATTALAKUNNU, P.O.MANNUTHY. 15. ANOOP.C.S, S/O.SADANANDAN.C.R, CHERUNGOTTIL HOUSE P.O.VELLANIKKARA, VELLANIKKARA, THRISSUR. 680 654. 16. AMBIKA DEVI.P.P, D/O.PARAMESWARAN.P.K, THUPPATHY HOUSE, P.O.OLLUKKARA, MANNUTHY, PIN-680 655. 17. JANCY.K.O - NELLICKAL HOUSE, MELECHIRA, CHUVANNAMANNU.P.O. 18. BINDU.K.B, VALOKKOTTU HOUSE, ASARIKKADU.P.O., PAYYANAM, PALAKKUNNU, THRISSUR. 19. ANNAMMA.P.G, CHERUVATHUR HOUSE, P.O.POONKUNNAM, K.K.LANE, THRISSUR. 20. RAHIMATH.K.A, D/O.R.ABOOTTY, KARIPPAMKULAM HOUSE, THIRUVANIKKAVU, P.O.OLLUKKARA, THRISSUR. 21. SUBI.T.M, PULINKUZHY HOUSE, PATTALAKKUNNU, KUTTICHIRA.P.O., MANNUTHI, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 22. BINDU.K.M, KUNJILIKKATTIL HOUSE, P.O.AYYAPPANKAVU, MULAYAM. 23. SARA.N.T, NELLANKARA HOUSE, H.S.SCHOOL, POOCHATTI ERAVIMANGALAM.P.O. 24. SAJITHA.V.P, D/O.PAZHANIKKUTTY, VALIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, MADAKKATHRA, VELLANIKKARA.P.O., THRISSUR. 25. BIJINI.A.K VALIYAVEETTIL HOUSE, P.O.MANNUTHI, VETTICKAL. 26. SREEDHARAN.C.V CHEMMANCHERY HOUSE, SUBHASH NAGAR, P.O.MANNUTHY. 27. SIMI.M.R, THEKKEPURATH HOUSE, - VELLANIKKARA WEST, MADAKKATHRA.P.O. 28. SONY ANTONY, KANNAMPUZHA HOUSE, KOZHUKKULLY.P.O., PALLIMOOLA, PIN-680 752. 29. DEEPA ELDHO, D/O.GEORGE.K.U, KODIYATTIL HOUSE, MANJAKKUNNU, PATTIKKADU.P.O., THRISSUR. 680 652. 30. RENYA KANNAN, AGED 28 YEARS, D/O.SELVARAJ, VATTAPARAMBIL, THEKKUMPADAM, PATTIKKADU.P.O., THRISSUR. 680 652. 31. NASSAR.K.E, S/O.IBRAHIMKUTTY, KARUPPAMVEETTIL HOUSE, AARAMKALLU, P.O.PATTIKKADU. 32. ASHA.A.K., D/O.KRISHNANKUTTY, ELLUKAALAAYIL HOUSE, THALIKKODE, PATTIKKADU.P.O., THRISSUR-680 652. WP(C).No. 14918 of 2013 (L) : 3 : 33. INDIRA.K.P., D/O.K.R.PARAMU, POOVASSERY HOUSE, KUTTIKKADU P.O.VELLANIKKARA, PIN-680 651. 34. AMBILI.M.S., D/O.SADANANDAN, PARAYANGATTIL HOUSE, P.O.VELLANIKKARA, PIN-680 654. 35. SIJU.M.T., MADATHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, P.O.KOZHUKKULLY, KOZHUKKULLY-680 752. 36. SINDHU JOY, PYARYADATH HOUSE, P.O.PATTIKKADU, MOOLAMKODU. 37. SIVAKUMAR.M, ELAYATHPARAMBIL, P.O.PUTTAZHY, OLARIKKARA THRISSUR. 38. DEVADAS.K.R KOTTEKKAATAN HOUSE, MADAKKATHRA.P.O., THRISSUR. 39. SANTHOSH.E.K EDAKKULAM HOUSE, MANNUTHY.P.O., PANANJAKAM-680 651. 40. SHAMIKA.P.R THAIKKADAN HOUSE, P.O.NETTISSERI, MUKKATTUKKARA. BY ADVS.SRI.C.A.CHACKO SMT.C.M.CHARISMA SMT.MEGHA K.XAVIER RESPONDENTS: - ---------------- 1. THE REGISTRAR, KERALA VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCES UNIVERSITY, POOKKODE, WAYANAD-673 576. 2. PROFESSOR AND HEAD UNIVERSITY LIVE STOCK FARM AND FODDER RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT SCHEME KERALA VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCES UNIVERSITY MANNUTHY, THRISSUR. 680 651. 3. THE REGISTRAR KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, VELLANIKKARA THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 656. R1,R2 BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI,SC,K.V & A.S. UTY R3 BY SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA,SC,KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-07-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 14918 of 2013 (L) ---------------------------- ## APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------------- P1- TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR DATED 23.1.12 OF IST RESPONDENT. P2- TRUE COPY OF NOTE DATED 31.1.12 OF 2ND RESPONDENT. - P3- TRUE COPY OF DETAILS OF 5TH PETITIONER WITH EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE. - P4- TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 9.4.2012 IN WP [C]NO.6595/2012. - P5- TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 6.11.2012 IN WP [C]NO.9723/2012. - P6- TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 16.10.2012 IN WP[C]NO.24421/2012. P7- TRUE COPY OF PROVISIONAL LIST PUBLISHED BY IST RESPONDENT. P8- TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 30.7.2012 OF IST PETITIONER. P9- TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION DATED 10.5.13 OF 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL ----------------------------- // TRUE COPY // TKS P.S. TO JUDGE ## **C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J.** ---------------------------- W.P.(C)No.14918 of 2013 ---------------------------Dated 4[th] July, 2013 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioners filed this writ petition on being aggrieved by the non-acceptance of their applications to consider for the selection process to prepare a list of temporary workers under the first respondent viz., Kerala Veterinary and Animal Sciences University. This writ petition is filed with the following prayers:- - “(i) issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to accept the applications of the petitioners to include them in the select list of daily wages employees in pursuance to Ext.P9 notification, without insisting production of experience certificates from the authorities under the 1[st] respondent and granting benefit of para 55 of the decision in **Umadevi (3)'s** case reported in ( **2006) 4 SCC 1** ) in the light of **Sathyaprakash and others** Vs. **State of Bihar and others** ( **2010) 4 SCC 179** ) and consider them in the selection process for preparing the select list of daily wages employees under the 2[nd] respondent. - (ii) declare that the petitioners are eligible to include in the list of daily wages employees under the 2[nd] respondent due to their experience under the registered Contractor and entitled to get relaxation in the age limit as para 55 of the decision in **Umadevi (3)'s** case reported in **(2006) 4 SCC 1** in the light of **Sathyaprakash and others** Vs. **State of Bihar and others (2010) 4 SCC 179)** .” WP(C).No.14918/2013 2 2. According to the petitioners, they attempted to submit applications pursuant to Ext.P9 notification. Evidently, Ext.P9 was issued not for the purpose of filling up of any vacancy under the University on regular basis whilst the purpose was only to prepare a select list of temporary workers. The appendix to Ext.P9 assumes relevance for the purpose of this case. Paragraph (1) thereunder reads thus:- - “ 1. 31.03.2011വര�യ�ള ക�ലഘടത�ല സരവകല�ശ�ലയ�ര� സ�ഷന / ഫ��/സക�സ ജ" എന�വ��ങ �ല ദ�വസസവതന/ക��രവ)വസയ�ല സജ�ല� ര+യ"ത�� �ന� എന" സ�ഖക �ര� അ��സ�നത�ല രത �വ�കള ഹ�ജ��ക�യ�ല അവര� വ�ജ�പനത�രല 1,2,3 ന�ബനനക �ല ന�ന��ക�യ�കകമത� പ�8കയ�ര� ആദ) ഇനമ�യ, 100 മ8ററര ഓടത�ലന�ന�� ഒഴ�വ�ക�നത�ണ". എന�ല അവര റ�ടയരരമന" NkLയ� (01.01.2013ന" 56 വയസ") ത�കയ�ന പ���sæLതത�ക�ന�. മറ"രത�ഴ�ല വവദഗ"I) പ�8കയ"ക" അവ��� വ�സJയ��സകണത�ണ".” It is evident from paragraph 1 that persons who had earlier put in temporary service under the University in its farm/station/college till 31.3.2011 in case produce documents revealing the factum of their engagement in any station/farm/college under the University during the aforesaid period would be exempted from competing in the 100 mts. race which forms the part of the selection process to test the physical fitness besides the conditions 1, 2 and 3 of the notification. However, WP(C).No.14918/2013 3 such persons should not have crossed the age of 56 years as on 1.1.2013. Paragraph 3 thereunder reads thus:- - “3. അന�കLലസക��ത�വ�J� സമ�ദ�ച�ട�ളവര ബനരOട സ�ഖക �യ സക��ത�വ�J�യ��, ഫ�മ�ല" സജ�ല� ര+യ"ത� എന" രത �യ�ക�നത�ന�വശ)മ�യ സമJ�വ�യ �ര�സ�ക)kNfവ�� അസപകസയ�ര��O� സമരO�സകണത�ണ". അവരക�� അന�ബന� ഒന�രല ഇ വ�കള ബ�Jകമ�യ���യ"ക��.” 3. In fact, paragraph 3 is analogous and virtually, a continuation of paragraph (1) inasmuch as, it says that such certificates required to be produced to reveal the factum of temporary engagement shall be the certificates issued by the competent authorities under the concerned station/farm/college and also based on authoritative documents. The petitioners, now, claim that they had worked on temporary basis under the University and therefore, entitled to get the benefit of paragraph (1) in the Appendix to Ext.P9 and to participate in the selection process. To substantiate the said contention they produced Ext.P3. In paragraph 3 of the writ petition it is stated thus:- “From those details like Ext.P3, it is evident that the petitioners have been engaged on contract basis from 2010 onwards.” WP(C).No.14918/2013 4 But, the certification in Ext.P3 would reveal that the petitioners were workers of a contractor. That apart, a bare reading of Ext.P3 would reveal that no sanctity could be attached to such a certificate. In this context, the contentions of respondents 1 and 2 in the statement filed assume relevance. In the said statement it is stated that exemption would be granted to such candidates only if certificate is issued by authorised officers after verification of the factum of engagement of the concerned person either in the farm or in the station or in the college in tune with paragraph (3) in the Appendix to Ext.P9. In this case, the petitioners did not have a case that the certificate was issued by a competent authority under the University after verifying any relevant document crept in the station/farm/college under the University. It is merely a certificate issued by a person who claims to be a contractor under the University and who at one point of time was awarded with certain contract works. If that be so, the status of the petitioners is nothing but the workers of a contractor. At any rate, such persons cannot claim that they were engaged on contract basis by the University. A scanning of the contentions of the petitioners in this writ petition would reveal that they rely on paragraph 55 of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others** v. **Umadevi (3) and Others ((2006) 4 SCC 1)** . Before considering the WP(C).No.14918/2013 5 said contentions relying on paragraph 55 of the aforesaid decision it is only proper and profitable to refer to paragraph 43 of the said decision. In paragraph 43 it is held:- “If it is a contractual appointment, the appointment comes to an end at the end of the contract, if it were an engagement or appointment on daily wages or casual basis, the same would come to an end when it is discontinued.” It is also relevant to refer to paragraphs 11 and 12 of the said decision. In paragraph 11 it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the Constitution does not envisage any employment outside the constitutional scheme and without following the requirements set down therein. True that, in paragraph 12 it is further held that in spite of the said scheme in the Constitution, there may be occasions when the sovereign State or its instrumentalities will have to employ persons, in posts which are temporary, on daily wages, as additional hands or taking them in without following the required procedure to discharge the duties in respect of the posts that are sanctioned and that are required to be filled in terms of the relevant procedure established by the Constitution or for work in temporary posts or projects that are not needed permanently. This right of the Union or of the State Government cannot WP(C).No.14918/2013 6 but be recognised and there is nothing in the Constitution which prohibits such engaging of persons temporarily or on daily wages, to meet the needs of the situation. In fact, it is thereafter that in paragraph 43 the aforementioned finding was arrived at. Thus, it is evident that in the case of contractual appointment the appointment comes to an end at the end of the contract. In other words, it would not confer any right on such appointees on contract basis. Now, I will consider the contentions of the petitioners regarding the entitlement of a consideration in terms of the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph 55 of the decision in **Umadevi (3)** 's case (supra). I cannot find any observation or finding which would support the contention of the petitioners that they are eligible to be considered in the selection process in question on the strength of the observations in paragraph 55 of **Umadevi (3)** 's case (supra). When the admitted case of the petitioners is that they were appointed by the contractors and in the absence of any document duly kept in the farm/station/college under the University which would reveal that the petitioners were engaged on contractual basis by the University or by the farm/station/college under the University they cannot contend that they are entitled to any benefit in terms of paragraphs 1 and 3 of Ext.P9. I am of the view that even if it is so, in terms of paragraph 55 of the decision in **Umadevi (3)** 's case (supra) an appointee on contract WP(C).No.14918/2013 7 basis cannot raise any indefeasible right at all as it is specifically held by the Hon'ble Apex Court as regards the appointment on contract basis that the appointment comes to an end on the expiry of the period of contract. At the same time, in the case of persons worked on daily wage basis, at the time of effecting regular selection process the benefits which are available based on paragraph 53 of **Umadevi (3)** 's case (supra) can be extended. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners made only a feeble attempt to bring the case of the petitioners under paragraph 55 of the **Umadevi (3)** 's case (supra). In fact, the petitioners cannot be heard to contend that they are entitled to such benefits in view of the specific averment in the writ petition itself that they were employees under a contractor and Ext.P3 in fact, would reveal that they were engaged by a contractor. In terms of Ext.P9, to earn eligibility to participate in the selection process a certificate is to be issued by a competent authority under the University whereunder the persons like the petitioners were engaged, revealing the factum of such engagement with the support of some authoritative documents. It is evident from the statements filed by the respondents that no such supporting documents have been available in the University or its station/farm/college to show that at any point of time the petitioners were engaged during a period prior to 31.3.2011. In fact, the petitioners WP(C).No.14918/2013 8 did not have any such case. In such circumstances, the petitioners cannot legally claim any benefit in the light of the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph 55 of **Umadevi (3)** 's case (supra). Resultantly, this writ petition is liable to fail and accordingly, it is dismissed. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS