Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeWrit petition allowed; Ext.P2 set aside; Govern...

JAYASREE.V et al. v. STATE OF KERALA & ORS

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) No. 33963 of 2022

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • Devan Ramachandran
Judgment Date
2022-11-23
Court Decision / Holding
The petition is allowed. Ext.P2 is set aside. The competent Secretary of the Government of Kerala is directed to reconsider the petitioners’ request for regularisation after affording them the opportunity to be heard and to produce all documents substantiating their assertion that they were contracted Library Assistants recruited via the same method of appointment as regular posts. The reconsideration shall be completed and a fresh appropriate order passed expeditiously, but not later than four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Final Disposition
Writ petition allowed; Ext.P2 set aside; Government directed to reconsider the petitioners’ request after hearing and production of documents within four months.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • JAYASREE.V
  • NAJIMI.N.A
  • MANJULA.S
  • SREEJA.L
  • POORNIMA.V.N
  • SHYMA.V
  • GEETHU.B.G.
  • SHERIN.S
  • SOUMYA.K.S
  • GOWRIKUTTY.G.S
  • SHEENA.S.A.
  • SREERESMI.L.R.
  • RAGIBALA.S.
  • MANOJ.S.KRISHNAN
  • ARCHANA.S.S
  • REMYA.S.L

Respondents

  • STATE OF KERALA represented by CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM -695001
  • PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM-695001
  • PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM-695001
  • SECRETARY, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM-695001
  • VICE CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, KERALA SENATE HOUSE CAMPUS, PALAYAM, TRIVANDRUM 695034
  • REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, KERALA SENATE HOUSE CAMPUS, PALAYAM, TRIVANDRUM 695034
  • DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, K.P.S.C. DISTRICT OFFICE, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695004

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • R. Kishore (Kallumthazham)
  • • Amar S.R.

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Thomas Abraham
  • • P.C. Sasidharan
  • • Parvathy.K

Case Synopsis & Summary

Jayasree V. and 15 other petitioners (Library Assistants on contract) of the University of Kerala challenged Ext.P2, a Government order dated 20 October 2022 rejecting their plea for regularisation. They contend that although engaged on contract, they followed the recruitment method stipulated for regular Library Assistants and thus their appointments, while not illegal, were irregular. Relying on the Supreme Court decision in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Uma Devi and others (2006) 4 SCC 1, they argue that regularisation cannot be achieved by bypassing constitutional requirements. The Government pleader contends Ext.P2 is based on verified facts showing the petitioners were not recruited through the prescribed process and therefore cannot be regularised under Uma Devi. The University’s Standing Counsel notes the Government’s position that Ext.P2 reflects a decision by the Government under a prior Court order (Ext.P1) and that the University cannot act independently. The petitioners assert there is documentary evidence suggesting they were recruited following a process akin to the regular method; they urge that due enquiry and opportunity to produce documents were required before Ext.P2 was issued. The High Court finds Ext.P2 lacking in adequate inquiry and evidence, sets it aside, and directs the Government to reconsider after hearing and production of documents, within four months, expeditiously, as per the judgment.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Uma Devi doctrine (Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi and others, 2006) 4 SCC 1

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submit that Ext.P2 was issued in a mechanical fashion without verifying the true facts. Although engaged on contract, they claim they followed the same recruitment method as for regular Library Assistants, and therefore their appointments cannot be treated as illegal but only irregular. They rely on Uma Devi to contend that regularisation requires adherence to constitutional mandates and due process, and not bypass. They argue that Ext.P2 ignores documentary evidence and representations already placed (Ext.P1 and Exhibits) and that the Government must consider regularisation on a case-by-case basis after an opportunity to be heard. They emphasize that the University’s vacancy notification (Exhibit P6) and circulars (Exhibit P7) show a recruitment framework compatible with the rules, albeit contracted. They seek quashing of Ext.P2 and a direction to reconsider with proper enquiry, allowing regularisation if justified by facts, and within a specified time frame.

Contentions of Respondents

The government and University contend Ext.P2 is a reasoned order grounded on verified facts, showing the petitioners were not recruited through the prescribed process for Library Assistants; hence regularisation is impermissible under Uma Devi. They argue that Uma Devi applies to prevent regularisation by bypassing constitutional requirements and that the University cannot act unilaterally without Government consent. They emphasize that Ext.P2 reflects due process and proper application of recruitment rules; Exhibits P6 and P7 corroborate the established recruitment framework and the need for adherence to due procedure. They urge dismissal of the petition or maintenance of Ext.P2, stressing that any relief must come only after proper government consideration following due process.”},

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Uma Devi and others(2006) 4 SCC 1PositiveThe court cites Uma Devi to emphasize that regularisation cannot bypass constitutional requirements and due process; it informs the approach to reconsideration with proper enquiry while respecting the principle against improper regularisation.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against JAYASREE.V et al. v. STATE OF KERALA & ORS and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 23[RD] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 2ND ``` ## **`AGRAHAYANA, 1944`** ## **`WP(C) NO. 33963 OF 2022`** ## **`PETITIONERS:`** - `1 JAYASREE.V AGED 36 YEARS D/O G. APPUKUTTAN NAIR, SARAYU, KOLLODE, MOONGODE. P.O, THIRUVANTHAPURAM- 695573.` - `2 NAJIMI.N.A, AGED- 43 YEARS, D/O ABDUL VAHAB, FATHIMAM, TC 4/635 (5) SVLRA, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANTHAPURAM695003.` - `3 MANJULA.S, AGED-45 YEARS, D/O APPUKUTTAN NAIR, ANJITHAM, CHERUVILA ROAD, VIZHAVOOR, MALAYAM.P.O ., THIRUVANTHAPURAM-695571.` - `4 SREEJA.L, AGED-38 YEARS, D/O THANKAPPAN NAIR.B RESIDING @ TC 76/2379, KATTIL VEEDU, THOPPIN LINE, ANAYARA. P.0, THIRUVANTHAPURAM-695029.` - `5 POORNIMA.V.N, AGED-40 YEARS, RESIDING @ FOREST OFFICE LANE, D-80, 14/1659, VAZHUTHACAUDU, THYCADU.P.O, THIRUVANTHAPURAM-695014.` - `6 SHYMA. V, AGED-40YEARS, D/O VAMADEVAN, KARAMANCHERRY, NETHAJI NAGAR-84, KILIKOLLOOR.P.O, KOLLAM691004.` - `7 GEETHU.B.G., AGED- 35 YEARS, D/O BHASURENDRA BABU KURUP, SREEVISKHAM, KALLAMBALAM.P.O, THIRUVANTHAPURAM695605.` - `8 SHERIN.S, AGED-39 YEARS, W/O MOHAMMAD ALI MANU, MENETHU PUTHENPURAYIL, VARAVILA. P.O, VAVVAKAVU,, KOLLAM-690528.` - `9 SOUMYA.K.S,` **WP(C) No. 33963 OF 2022** ..2.. ``` AGED- 40 YEARS, D/O G.KRSIHNANKUTTY, SOUMYA NIVAS, PUNNAVILA, ANAD.P.O, NEDUMANGAD-695541. ``` - `10 GOWRIKUTTY.G.S, AGED-43 YEARS, D/O A.R. GOPALAKRISHNA PANIKKAR, HOUSE NO.440, PRASANTH NAGAR, ULLOOR, MEDICAL COLLEGE.P.O, THIRUVANTHAPURAM-695011.` - `11 SHEENA.S.A. , AGED-43 D/O M. SREEDHARAN, SABU NIVAS, MEKKOLLA, MANCHAVILAKAM.P.O, THIRUVANTHAPURAM-695503.` - `12 SREERESMI.L.R., AGED-36YEARS, D/O K.RAJENDRAN NAIR, SREEHARAM, KANCHAMPAZHINJI.P.O, THIRUVANTHAPURAM-695525.` - `13 RAGIBALA.S. AGED-43 YEARS, D/O SREEKUMAR,PRAKKYLAM COTTAGE, THAMPURAMMUKKU, KUNNUKUZHI, HOUSE NO THARA 67, THIRUVANTHAPURAM-695034.` - `14 MANOJ.S.KRISHNAN, AGED-40 S/O KRISHNAN KUTTY, SREELAKSHMI, PUNNAVILA, ANAD.P.O, NEDUMANGAD, PIN-695541.` - `15 ARCHANA.S.S, AGED-36 YEARS, D/O SREEKANDAN NAIR.S VISHAKOM TC 50/957, THALIYAL, KARAMANA.P.O, THIRUVANTHAPURAM-695002.` - `16 REMYA.S.L ., AGED-40 YEARS, D/O SATHASIVAN.B, SINI NIVAS (KRISHNAKRIPA) TC 10/673 (TC23/603) ERA 48, EDAYILAKONAM, MANNAMTHALA.P.O,PIN 695 015 .` - `BY ADVS. R.KISHORE (KALLUMTHAZHAM) AMAR S.R.` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - `1 STATE OF KERALA TO BE REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM -695001.` - `2 PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM-695001.` - `3 PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,` **WP(C) No. 33963 OF 2022** ..3.. ``` SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM-695001. ``` - `4 SECRETARY, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM-695001.` - `5 VICE CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, KERALA SENATE HOUSE CAMPUS, PALAYAM, TRIVANDRUM 695034.` - `6 REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, KERALA SENATE HOUSE CAMPUS, PALAYAM, TRIVANDRUM 695034.` - `7 DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,` - `K.P.S.C. DISTRICT OFFICE, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695004.` ``` BY ADVS. ``` - `THOMAS ABRAHAM SHRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM, SC, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA` ``` SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN -SC,SMT.PARVATHY.K-GP ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` **WP(C) No. 33963 OF 2022** ..4.. ## **J UDGMENT** The petitioners, who are working as Library Assistants on contract in the Kerala University, assail Ext.P2 – order of the Government of Kerala, which rejects their plea for regularisation on the grounds that they were not appointed as per the method of recruitment specified for Library Assistants; and further that, the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, cited as _**Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Uma**_ _**Devi and others**_ [(2006) 4 SCC 1], does not permit the “ _bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularising or making permanent not those duly appointed_ ” (sic). 2. The petitioners allege that, Ext.P2 has been issued in a mechanical fashion, without verifying the true facts, particularly that, though they were appointed on contract, they went through the same method of recruitment as were stipulated for the post of Library Assistants. They contend that, therefore, even going by **Uma Devi (** _**supra**_ **)** , their appointments are not illegal but only irregular and therefore, that they are liable to be regularised in terms of its declarations, without any further delay. **WP(C) No. 33963 OF 2022** **==> picture [20 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** 3. The afore submissions of Sri.R.Kishore – learned counsel for the petitioners, were answered by Smt.Parvathy Kottol – learned Government Pleader, saying that, as is evident from Ext.P2, Government had verified all germane facts and found that petitioners were not appointed as Library Assistants on contract by the Kerala University after following the method of recruitment stipulated by the applicable Rules and Regulations. She added that, therefore, going by **Uma Devi (** _**supra**_ **)** such appointments can never be regularised and that, therefore, Government was well within its power to have rejected the plea of the petitioners. She thus prayed that this writ petition be dismissed. 4. Sri.Thomas Abraham – learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala University, submitted that he has no comment to make on the controversy because, it is for the Government to first take a decision as to the right of the petitioners for being regularised in service. He added that, when the Government has already said that petitioners cannot be regularised in Ext.P2, which is issued in terms of Ext.P1 judgment of this Court, the University cannot take an independent decision. **WP(C) No. 33963 OF 2022** **==> picture [20 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** 5. The submissions of the learned Government Pleader make it indubitable, as also manifest from Ex.P2, that Government has rejected the petitioners’ plea on the ground that they were not recruited as Library Assistants on contract, following the modus of recruitment specified under their applicable Rules and Regulations. However, this is vehemently controverted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, saying that there are records to show that his clients were so recruited and therefore, that **Uma Devi (** _**supra**_ **)** would apply to them in full force. 6. On a reading of Ext.P2, it does not really show any advertance to the contention of the petitioners that they were appointed on contract following the method of recruitment stipulated. On the contrary, Ext.P2 peremptorily records that, no such processes had been completed by the University and that the petitioners were appointed on mere contracts entered into by them with the latter. 7. Obviously, this is a disputation of fact, which ought to have been specifically enquired into and verified by the Government before Ext.P2 could have been issued. For this **WP(C) No. 33963 OF 2022** **==> picture [20 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** reason, I cannot find favour with it. This is more so because, when, through Ext.P1, this Court allowed the petitioners to approach the Government with an apposite representation seeking regularisation, such an enquiry ought to have been done before Ext.P2 could have been issued. In the afore circumstances and for the reasons above, I allow this writ petition and set aside Ext.P2; with a consequential direction to the competent Secretary of Government of Kerala to reconsider the request of the petitioners, after affording them opportunity of being heard and of producing all documents in substantiation of their assertion that they were appointed as Library Assistants on contract following the same method of appointment, as is stipulated for regular appointment; thus culminating in an appropriate order and necessary action thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- ## **DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE** ACR **WP(C) No. 33963 OF 2022** ..8.. ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 33963/2022`** ``` PETITIONER EXHIBITS ``` ``` Exhibit P1THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NUMBERED AS 19052/2022 DATED 16TH JULY 2022. ``` - `Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT NUMBERED AS GO(RT)NO.1547/2022/HEDN DATED 20.10.2022.` - `Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT NUMBERED AS 37/2020 DATED 06.11.2020.` - `Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 27TH NOVEMBER 2020 IN WPC 25540/2020.` - `Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS DATED 20TH SEPTEMBER 2022.` - `Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA DATED 23.06.2018 FOR THE VACANCIES OF LIBRARY ASSISTANT ON CONTRACT BASIS.` - `Exhibit P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS (RULES) DEPARTMENT NO.1140/R1/2004/P&ARD DATED, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, 21ST FEBRUARY, 2004` - `Exhibit P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE OF THE 1ST PETITIONER.` - `Exhibit P8 A THE TRUE COPY OF THE EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE OF THE 2ND PETITIONER.` - `Exhibit P8 B THE TRUE COPY OF THE EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE OF THE 3RD PETITIONER.` - `Exhibit P8 C THE TRUE COPY OF THE EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE OF THE 4TH PETITIONER.` - `Exhibit P8 D THE TRUE COPY OF THE EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE OF THE 5TH PETITIONER.` - `Exhibit P8 E THE TRUE COPY OF THE EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE OF THE 6TH PETITIONER.` **WP(C) No. 33963 OF 2022** ..9.. ``` Exhibit P8 FTHE TRUE COPY OF THE EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE OF THE 7TH PETITIONER. Exhibit P8 GTHE TRUE COPY OF THE EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE OF THE 8TH PETITIONER. Exhibit P8 HTHE TRUE COPY OF THE EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE OF THE 9TH PETITIONER. Exhibit P8 ITHE TRUE COPY OF THE EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE OF THE 10TH PETITIONER. Exhibit P8 JTHE TRUE COPY OF THE EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE OF THE 11TH PETITIONER. Exhibit P8 KTHE TRUE COPY OF THE EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE OF THE 12TH PETITIONER. Exhibit P8 LTHE TRUE COPY OF THE EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE OF THE 13TH PETITIONER. Exhibit P8 MTHE TRUE COPY OF THE EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE OF THE 14TH PETITIONER. Exhibit P8 NTHE TRUE COPY OF THE EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE OF THE 15TH PETITIONER. Exhibit P8 OTHE TRUE COPY OF THE EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE OF THE 16TH PETITIONER. ```