Rahul V. v. Kannur University and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA** **FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017/28TH ASWINA, 1939** **WP(C).No. 31627 of 2017 (C) ----------------------------** **PETITIONER:** **-----------** **RAHUL V., VECHIYOTTU HOUSE, POOKKOTHUNDA, THALIPARAMBA P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT-670 141.** **BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE MECHERIL** |**RESPONDENTS:**|**RESPONDENTS:**| |---|---| |**------------**|| |**1.**|**THE KANNUR UNIVERSITY,**| ||**THAVAKKARA, CIVIL STATION P.O,**| ||**KANNUR - 670 002,**| ||**REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.**| |**2.**|**THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,**| ||**PATTOM PALACE P.O.,**| ||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001,**| ||**REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.**| |**3.**|**CHANDRAN CHENNAPPOIL,**| ||**CHENNIPPOIL HOUSE, NARIKKODE MALA P.O.,**| ||**THUVAKKUNNU VIA, KANNUR-670 101.**| ||**R1 BY SRI.M.SASINDRAN, SC**| ||**R2 BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC**| ||**R3 BY ADVS.SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ**| ||**KUM.THULASI K. RAJ**| ||**KUM.A.ARUNA**| **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-10-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **mbr/** ## **WP(C).No. 31627 of 2017 (C) ----------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:** - **EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ACT NO.18/2015 PUBLISHED IN THE EXTRA ORDINARY GAZETTE NO.2826 DATED 21/12/2015.** - **EXHIBIT P2: A COPY OF THE SYNDICATE DECISION DATED 9/6/2017 OF THE KANNUR UNIVERSITY.** - **EXHIBIT P3: A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE RANKED LIST.** - **EXHIBIT P4: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19/8/2011 OF THE UNIVERSITY.** - **EXHIBIT P5: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24/4/2012 OF THE REGISTRAR, KANNUR UNIVERSITY.** - **EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 20/7/2012 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY.** - **EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 22/9/2012 EXHIBIT P8: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 6/11/2012 OF THE P.S.C.** - **EXHIBIT P9: TRUE COPY OF THE CLARIFICATION FROM THE GOVERNMENT BY A REQUEST DATED 4/1/2013.** - **EXHIBIT P10: TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 10/5/2013 OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT.** - **EXHIBIT P11: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 15/7/2013 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P12: TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE MINUTES OF THE SYNDICATE MEETING AGENDA ITEM NO. 2012.507.** - **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.S. TO JUDGE** **mbr/** **P.V.ASHA J. -----------------------------------W.P.(C).No.31627 of 2017 ------------------------------------** Dated this the 20[th] day of October, 2017 ## **J U D G M E N T** Petitioner states that he is a resident of Pookkothunada in Taliparamba, who is unemployed. This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P2 and for a direction to the first respondent-Kannur University ('University' for short) to report all the existing vacancies of nonteaching staff of Kannur University to the Public Service Commission without further delay. 2. Ext.P2 is the minutes of the meeting the Syndicate held on 09.06.2017, in which it was decided to offer regular appointment to the 3[rd] respondent. Apart from stating that petitioner is unemployed and is a resident of Pookkothunada, petitioner has not furnished any other details including his educational qualification. Petitioner has not stated whether he is qualified for appointment to any of the post of non-teaching staff in the University or whether he has ever applied for **W.P.(C).No.31627 of 2017** 2 appointment to any post anywhere or even registered his name anywhere for employment. 3. The case of the petitioner is that once the Kerala Public Service Commission (Additional Functions as respect the services under the Universities) Act, 2015, came into force on 29.09.2015, as per Ext.P1 notification, University cannot make any appointment otherwise than through Public Service Commission. The petitioner has produced Ext.P3 Rank List for selection and appointment to the post of Peon/Watchman in the University, in which the 3[rd] respondent is ranked No.1 in the supplementary list of Scheduled Tribe. He has also produced Ext.P4 order issued on 19.08.2011, by which the 3[rd] respondent's services were terminated with effect from 02.08.2011, since the regular incumbent reported for duty requesting to cancel the unavailed portion of leave. Ext.P4 would show that the 3[rd] respondent was appointed against a leave vacancy which was available in the Finance Branch of the University, along with certain others, as per order dated 22.07.2011. Petitioner points out that even though Ext.P5 memo was issued by the University on 24.04.2012, informing the 3[rd] respondent that he was selected for appointment to the post of Peon/Watchman provisionally, he sought extension **W.P.(C).No.31627 of 2017** 3 of joining time. Ext.P6 memo was issued to the 3[rd] respondent thereafter on 20.07.2012, rejecting his request for extension of time to join duty and directing him to report for duty. Exts.P7 and P8 are the communications between the University and Public Service Commission, regarding the extension of time for joining duty to a candidate, who is offered appointment and the further action to be taken. Exts.P9 and P10 are communications between the Registrar and Secretary to Government regarding the granting of extension of duty. By Ext.P11 letter dated 15.07.2013, the Registrar informed the 3[rd] respondent that his request for re-appointment cannot be accepted, since he did not report for duty even after his request for extension of time to join duty, was rejected. 4. Petitioner submits that Ext.P2 decision to appoint the 3[rd] respondent is contrary to Ext.P11 order and Ext.P12 decision of the syndicate dated nil, it was resolved not to ratify the decision of the Vice Chancellor to extent the validity period of the list for one more year and it was resolved not to make any appointment from the list even on ad-hoc basis. The re-appointment of the petitioner is alleged to be made from a ranked list which expired, that too after the commencement of Ext.P1 Act, **W.P.(C).No.31627 of 2017** 4 by which all the appointments of the non-teaching staff in all the Universities are brought under the control of the Public Service Commission. 5. Petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P2, with the support of the aforesaid details. But petitioner has not stated how he is in any way concerned with the reappointment of 3[rd] respondent. He is not one included in any of the rank lists for appointment as Peon or in Ext.P3 rank list. There is no averment in writ petition that he has ever applied for the selection for appointment to the post of Peon/Watchman or to any other posts in the Kannur University. Therefore it cannot be said that there is any private interest involved in this writ petition. Petitioner has not moved this as a Public Interest Litigation. 6. The 3[rd] respondent had filed W.P.(C) No. 20405 of 2013, seeking reappointment in the University, by virtue of the retrenchment from service. During the pendency of that writ petition, the University issued Ext.P2 order. As it was pointed out that the syndicate was considering the case of the petitioner favourably, that writ petition was disposed of by judgment dated 11.09.2017. The petitioner had got impleaded in that writ petition. Petitioner had **W.P.(C).No.31627 of 2017** 5 also filed a Review Petition No.898 of 2017, which was dismissed on 18.10.2017. 7. Relying on the judgment in **Jaleel P.P. v. P.K.Muralikrishnan and others** [2014 (1) KHC 672], the learned Standing Counsel for the University points out that the petitioner, who is a third party, does not have any locus standi to challenge the appointment of the 3[rd] respondent. 8. From the pleadings, it would appear that the petitioner is totally a stranger as far as the appointment of the 3[rd] respondent is concerned. This writ petition filed by a person who is not a contestant for the post in which 3[rd] respondent is appointed can therefore be found only as a Public Interest Litigation. But it is not moved as a Public Interest Litigation. Even Public Interest Litigation is not permissible in service matters, as well settled by a series of judgments of the Apex Court and this Court. (See **Dr. Duryodhan Sahu V Jithendra Mishra** [1998 (7) SCC 273], **Gurpal Singh v. State of Punjab** [2005 (5) SCC 136] _,_ **Jaleel P.P. v. P.K.Muralikrishnan and others** [2014 (1) KHC 672] _**.**_ 9. In this case also the petitioner, who has not even furnished the details of even his qualification, **W.P.(C).No.31627 of 2017** 6 cannot have any locus standi to challenge Ext.P2 order. 10. Even on merits, what the 3[rd] respondent sought was a re-appointment based on his retrenchment from service for want of vacancy after he was appointed in the post on the basis of his inclusion in Ext.P3 ranked list. It is not as if a total outsider was given appointment. Therefore a person like petitioner cannot be permitted to prosecute this writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- **P.V.ASHA, JUDGE.** AS