Rajeev K. v. Central University of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY** **MONDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 6TH KARTHIKA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No.36985 OF 2018(W)** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **RAJEEV K AGED 51 YEARS S/O BHASKARA MARAR.G, OFFICE ATTENDANT, CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, TEJASWINI HILLS, PERIYA, KASARGODE-671 316.** **BY ADVS. SRI.K.N.ABHILASH SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** |**1**|**THE CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF KERALA**| |---|---| ||**REPRESENTED BY REGISTRAR, NAYANMARMOOLA,**| ||**VIDHYANAGAR.P.O, KASARGODE-671101.**| |**2**|**THE REGISTRAR,**| ||**CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF KERALA,**| ||**NAYANMARMOOLA,VIDHYANAGAR P.O.,**| ||**KASARAGOD PIN 671 101.**| |**3**|**THE VICE CHANCELLOR,**| ||**CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF KERALA,NAYANMARMOOLA,**| ||**VIDHYANAGAR P.O.KASARAGOD PIN 671 101.**| **R1-3 BY SRI.V.SAJITH KUMAR, SC, CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF KERALA** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WP(C).No.36985 OF 2018(W) 2 ## **JUDGMENT** This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:- “ _i) To issue a writ of certiorari quashing Ext.P5 as unjust, illegal and unsustainable._ _ii) To declare that the petitioner is entitled to get absorbed as regular employee in the post of peon in 1[st] respondent central university._ _Iii) To declare that Ext.P2 resolution cannot stand in the way of absorption of the petitioner as regular employee in the post of peon in 1[st] respondent central University._ _iv) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the 2[nd] respondent to pass orders shifting the petitioner from the category of outsourced workers to the category of contingency staff as stated in Ext.P1 order and to absorb him as regular employee in the post of peon in 1[st] respondent central university, on that basis._ _v. To issue a writ of mandamus directing the 3[rd] respondent to take a fresh decision in Ext.P6 representation filed by the petitioner and to retain the petitioners in the present post.”_ 2. Brief material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:- Petitioner was working as office attender under WP(C).No.36985 OF 2018(W) 3 the 1[st] respondent. Admittedly, the appointment was temporary in nature. For the regularisation of appointment, petitioner preferred a representation before the 3[rd] respondent, however no action was taken, pursuant to which W.P.C No.20702/2015 was filed and as per Ext.P4 judgment directed the 3[rd] respondent to consider the application filed by the petitioner. After considering the claim raised in accordance with the directions contained in Ext.P4, it was rejected as per Ext.P5 order. It is thus challenging Ext.P5 and seeking other consequential reliefs, this writ petition is filed. 3. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have filed a detailed counter affidavit refuting the claims and demands raised by the petitioner. Among other contentions it is stated that, the petitioner had worked only on daily wages basis for few days upto 31.07.2011 and considering the nature of engagement his service as a casual worker from October 2009 to July 2011 will not confer any legal right for continuance or for regularization in the service of WP(C).No.36985 OF 2018(W) 4 the University. It is also submitted that petitioner was engaged through outsourcing agency i.e. M/s. Matha Security Agencies after July,2011. Thus the petitioner ceased to be a casual worker at Central University of Kerala. That apart it is pointed out that, the University is not having any records of his engagement by M/s. Matha Security Agencies. The selection of employees is made by outsourcing agencies and University is effecting the payment of the work in terms of the agreement executed by and between the University and the Outsourcing Agency. It is also stated that the University Act does not permit engagement of casual or contingent employees. In view of the settled legal position, the Executive Council took the view that, engagement can only be through Registered Agencies. It is also submitted that, the University has not maintained any service particulars with regard to the outsourced employees including that of the petitioner. The Outsourcing Agency used to rotate its employees between various institutions WP(C).No.36985 OF 2018(W) 5 under them. Many persons engaged and withdrawn and new employees were substituted at the instance of agency at regular intervals. There is also no selection on merit and roster for reservation was never maintained. Any attempt to regularise such employees will squarely be against the equality of opportunity in public employment guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 4. The sum and substance put forth by the 1[st] respondent is that, the entire aspects in accordance with the representation submitted by the petitioner was taken into account while complying with the directions contained in Ext.P4 judgment rendered by this Court. **==> picture [398 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the 1[st] respondent and perused the pleadings and documents on record. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondents addressed their arguments in terms of the pleadings WP(C).No.36985 OF 2018(W) 6 put forth by the parties. The sole question to be considered is, whether any manner of interference is warranted to Ext.P5 order. I have gone through Ext.P5 order passed by the 1[st] respondent extensively and what I could gather is that, each and every points raised by the petitioner with respect to his casual employment etc. were considered, taking into account also the proposition of law laid down by the Apex Court in _**'Uma Devi Vs. State of Karnataka [2006 (4) SCC**_ _**1]**_ 'and also the factual circumstances put forth by the petitioner. It is also clear from Ext.P5 order that petitioner could not established before the authority that the petitioner is entitled for regularization in accordance with law. So also it is clear from the counter affidavit filed by the 1[st] respondent that, the University Rule does not permit appointment by casual engagement and all appointments in the University will have to be made by issuing appropriate notifications. There is no case for the petitioner that, petitioner was WP(C).No.36985 OF 2018(W) 7 engaged by the University directly, and further there is no record available with the University in respect of the engagement of the petitioner. 7. In that view of the matter, I do not think petitioner has established any case of arbitrariness, illegality or unfairness justifying this Court to interfere with Ext.P5 order passed by the University dated 08.06.2017. Sequel to the above discussion is, writ petition fails, accordingly it is dismissed. ## **Sd/-** ## **SHAJI P.CHALY** **JUDGE** ## **hmh** WP(C).No.36985 OF 2018(W) 8 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1** **THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.11.2009 ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF KERALA.** **EXHIBIT P2** **THE TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PART OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL.** **EXHIBIT P3** **THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23.1.2015 PERTAINING TO THE PETITIONER** **EXHIBIT P4** **RUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 17.3.2017 IN WPC NO 20702/2015 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.** **EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO CUK/WPC 20702/2015 DATED 8.6.2017 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 8.8.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** ## **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:NIL**