Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeDismissed

K. Indu and others v. The Vice Chancellor, Kerala Agricultural University and The Registrar, Kerala Agricultural University

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 14246 of 2013 (E)

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • C. T. Ravikumar
Judgment Date
2013-07-16
Court Decision / Holding
Writ petition dismissed. However, in line with Umadevi (3), if the respondents conduct a regular selection for the post of casual employees, the petitioners shall be permitted to participate in such selection and shall receive all benefits under paragraph 55 of Umadevi (3).
Final Disposition
Dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • K. Indu
  • K. V. Snehalatha
  • V. Sudha
  • M. V. Girija
  • K. Hemalatha

Respondents

  • The Vice Chancellor, Kerala Agricultural University
  • The Registrar, Kerala Agricultural University

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Sri. P. V. Jayachandran

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Sri. Babu Joseph Kuruvathazha, SC

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioners, five casual employees of the Kerala Agricultural University (KAU), approach the High Court seeking mandamus to compel the first respondent to decide Ext.P2 memorandum as in Ext.P1 for ABARD employees and to refrain from appointing permanent posts without regularising the petitioners. They claim employment as casual workers since 2009 under KAU and seek regularisation on the analogy of ABARD project absorption of 125 casual employees in 2009–2010. The learned judge notes the petitions’ posture and hears submissions from both sides. The court frames its analysis around established Supreme Court doctrine on regularisation of casual workers, primarily Umadevi (3) (Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi (3) and others) and related decisions. It observes that Umadevi (3) governs the entitlement to regularisation, and that a court cannot compel regularisation inconsistent with that ratio; it also notes the cautionary statements in 2009 where the Court deprecated directions that circumvent Umadevi. The judgment further references Jeemon V.R. and others v. State of Kerala and others as part of the evolving jurisprudence, but ultimately accepts there is no enforceable right to regularisation for the petitioners, given their start date in 2009. However, it preserves a conditional prospect: if a regular selection for casual posts is conducted, petitioners may participate and receive benefits under paragraph 55 of Umadevi (3). The petition is dismissed with this caveat.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Umadevi (3) doctrine on regularisation of casual employees; circulars or orders directing regularisation contrary to Umadevi (3) cannot be enforced.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Petitioners contend they were engaged as casual employees from 2009 and seek regularisation by directing the first respondent to decide Ext.P2 as in Ext.P1 for ABARD employees, so as to regularise their status and prevent further permanent appointments without regularisation.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents rely on established Supreme Court doctrine (Umadevi) that casual employees do not acquire a legal right to regularisation; there is no duty on the respondents to regularise; if a regular selection is conducted for casual posts, petitioners may participate under the Umadevi framework, with benefits as laid down in paragraph 55.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi (3) and others(2006) 4 SCC 1PositiveThe court relies on the Umadevi doctrine to hold there is no single right to regularisation for casual employees and that directives to regularise contrary to this principle cannot be enforced.
Jeemon V.R. and others v. State of Kerala and others(2012) 1 KHC 397Mentioned OnlyCited as related authority on the same issue but not a controlling ruling in the present decision.
Unknown 2009 (1) SCC decision(2009) 1 SCCPositiveDeprecates the practice of issuing directions to regularise despite Umadevi; supports the court’s position in this case.

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 K. Indu and others v. The Vice Chancellor, Kerala Agricultural University and The Registrar, Kerala Agricultural University 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 C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JULY 2013/25TH ASHADHA, 1935 WP(C).No. 14246 of 2013 (E) ---------------------------- PETITIONERS: - --------------- 1. K.INDU, W/O.SREEDHARAN, KOTTIKKADAVATH HOUSE, PALAYI P.O.PUTHARIYADUKAM, NEELESWARAM, KASARAGOD - 671 314. ## 2. K.V.SNEHALATHA, W/O.K.SUDHAKARAN, MUNDAMMATT, P.O.KOTTAPPURAM NEELESWWARAM, KASARAGOD - 671 314. 3. V.SUDHA, W/O.VENUGOPALAN, KOTTARA HOUSE, P.O.THAIKADAPPURAM NEELESWARAM, KASARAGOD - 671 314. 4. M.V.GIRIJA, D/O.M.V.BALAN, PALAYI, P.O. PUTHARIYADUKAM NEELESWARAM, KASARAGOD - 671 314. 5. K.HEMALATHA, W/O.SASIDHARAN, KODAKARA ATTIPPIL HOUSE P.O. PUTHARIYADUKAM, NEELESWARAM, KASARAGOD - 671 314. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.JAYACHANDRAN RESPONDENTS: ------------------- 1. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY P.O., VELLANIKKARA TRISSUR - 680 654. 2. THE REGISTRAR, KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY P.O., VELLANIKKARA TRISSUR - 680 654. R BY SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA,SC, KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16-07-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 14246 of 2013 (E) ---------------------------- ## APPENDIX ## PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS --------------------------- EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.G.A/AF2/13000/13 DATED 24.05.2013. EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY OF THE PAY FIXATION ORDER WITH PAY SLIP UNDER 2006 UGC SCHEME DATED 6.5.2013. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL ------------------------------ // TRUE COPY // TKS P.S. TO JUDGE ## **C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. ========================== W.P.(C). No.14246 OF 2013 ==========================** Dated this the 16[th] day of July, 2013 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioners who are working as casual employees under the Kerala Agricultural University filed this writ petition seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the first respondent to take a decision on Ext.P2 memorandum as has been done in the case of ABARD employees as per Ext.P1 within a time limit fixed by this Court. The further prayer is for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the first respondent not to make any appointment to the post of permanent employees without regularising the petitioners to the post of casual employees. Even going by the very contentions raised by the petitioners, it is evident that they were engaged only as casual employees by the Kerala Agricultural University that too, only from the year 2009. They seek for regularisation on the strength of **W.P.(C).14246/13** 2 Ext.P1. According to the petitioners, 125 employees working in ABARD project were absorbed as casual employees in the Kerala Agricultural University during the period 2009-2010. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. In the light 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]** the right of casual employees to get regularisation is being governed by the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the said decision. Though pointed question was put to the learned counsel for the petitioners as to whether the petitioners can legally seek for regularisation in the light of the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Umadevi (3),** no right emanating from the said decision was brought to my notice. Considering the admitted position that the petitioners commenced their casual service only from 2009, in the light of decision in **Umadevi (3),** they cannot legally stake any **W.P.(C).14246/13** 3 claim for regularisation. In this context, it is to be noted that the very practice of issuing directions to consider regularisation despite the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in **Umadevi (3)** (supra) has been deprecated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in **2009 (1) SCC.** 3. In the said decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that any circular or order which orders for regularisation ignoring the dictum laid down in **Umadevi (3)** (supra) could not be enforced at all. This Court had also an occasion to consider the same question in the decision in **Jeemon V.R. and others v. State of Kerala and others (2012 (1) KHC 397).** In light of the aforesaid decisions, the petitioners are not entitled to seek for issuance of a writ of mandamus as they have failed to establish any duty cast upon the respondents to consider their claim for regularisation. In fact, in the light of the decision in **Umadevi (3)** (supra), the petitioners cannot stake any claim for regularisation. If that be so, it cannot be said that inaction on the part of the respondents in considering Ext.P2 create a right on **W.P.(C).14246/13** 4 the petitioners. In such circumstances, the petitioners are not entitled to the reliefs sought for in this writ petition. However, it is made clear that in terms of the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph 55 in **Umadevi(3),** in case the respondents conduct a regular selection to the post of casual employees, the petitioners shall be permitted to take part in the selection in accordance with the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in **Umadevi (3)** (supra) and all the benefits to which they are entitled under paragraph 55 thereunder shall be extended to them. Subject to the above observations, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- ## **C.T. RAVIKUMAR (JUDGE)** **spc/** **W.P.(C).14246/13** 5 **C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.** **W.P.(C).14246/13** 6 **JUDGMENT September, 2010**