High Court of KeralaDivision BenchWrit Appeals dismissed; no costs.
Saheer Babu K.T. v. University of Calicut and others
Case / Petition Number:WA.No.65/2020; WA.No.66/2020; WA.No.68/2020; WA.No.135/2020
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar
- Gopinath P.
- Judgment Date
- 2021-03-04
- Court Decision / Holding
- Writ Appeals dismissed; no costs. The court held that the amended Calicut University First Statutes do not create a preference for Degree holders over senior Diploma holders; promotions are to be determined by seniority subject to the prescribed qualifications, and KS & SSR apply where there is no contrary University Statute.
- Final Disposition
- Writ Appeals dismissed; no costs.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- Saheer Babu K.T.
Respondents
- University of Calicut (represented by Registrar)
- The Vice Chancellor, University of Calicut
- The Pro Vice Chancellor, University of Calicut
- Jayan Padassery
- Sivadasan K.
- Rekha P.
- Kerala Public Service Commission
- The Syndicate, University of Calicut
- Renjith K.L. (added as Additional Respondent)
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • George Poonthottam (Sr.)
- • Nisha George
Counsels for Respondents
- • Asok M. Cherian
- • S.P. Aravindakshan Pillay
- • T.B. Hood
- • P.K. Muhammed
- • M. Isha
- • S. Ramesh
- • P.C. Sasidharan
- • Amal Kasha
- • Amal Kasha
- • S.Ramesh
Case Synopsis & Summary
This batch of writ appeals arises from common concerns about promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil) in the Calicut University service following amendments to the Calicut University First Statutes (1977) in 2004. A vacancy occurred in 2011 in the AEE cadre, triggering a dispute between Diploma holders and Degree holders over promotion precedence. Degree holders contended that the amended provisions’ ‘method of recruitment’ and the KS & SSR framework mandate promotion of qualified degree holders over diploma holders. The university initially promoted a Diploma holder (Jayan Padasseri), which Shaheer Babu challenged; the Syndicate reviewed and directed a separate seniority list and a promotion ratio favoring degree holders, based on the KS & SSR applicability via Statute II of Chapter IV. The learned Single Judge held that the correct interpretation is that senior Diploma holders with the requisite qualifications have the right to promotion over junior Degree holders, and that merely possessing a degree does not confer entitlement to precedence. The appellants argued for a degree-first reading, citing interpretive maxims and committee recommendations; the respondents urged adherence to seniority coupled with prescribed qualifications. The Division Bench rejected the degree-first interpretation, holding that the amended rules contemplate promotion by seniority and qualification, not automatic preference to Degree holders. It clarified that KS & SSR provisions apply only in the absence of contrary University Statutes. The WA appeals were dismissed with no costs, reinstating the single-judge view.
Provisions of Law Cited
Calicut University First Statutes, 1977 – Statute II of Chapter IV (as amended 2004)Calicut University First Statutes – Amendment 2004Kerala State & Subordinate Services Rules, 1958 (KS&SSR)Kerala Engineers Service Rules, 1965Rule 4 of the Kerala Engineers Service Rules (qualification/experience)
Legal Doctrines & Maxims
- Presumption in statutory interpretation that every part of a statute should have effect and legislative intention aims at giving effect to every provision (cited from J.K. Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of U.P., 1961) and Maya Mathew v. State of Kerala, 2010, 4 SCC 498.
- Seniority and qualification as the basis for promotion; seniority remains a controlling factor subject to statutory qualifications.
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The appellants contended that the amended ‘method of recruitment’ clause, read with Statute II (Chapter IV) and KS & SSR, should promote Degree holders with qualifying credentials over senior Diploma holders. They relied on interpretive authorities (cited cases) and the Dr. Philip Mathew committee’s recommendations to show legislative intent favors degree-based progression when qualifications are met, arguing that senior diploma holders may be bypassed. They asserted that, given the wording and the presence of higher qualifications, a degree holder with appropriate experience should not be denied preference. They emphasized that the Minutes of Syndicate discussions preceding the amendment reflect an intention to promote degree holders ahead of diploma holders.
Contentions of Respondents
The respondents argued that the amended rules fix promotion on the basis of seniority and qualification; Seniority among qualified staff governs promotion, and having a degree does not automatically override a senior Diploma holder who also meets qualification requirements. They contended that KS & SSR and Kerala Engineers Service Rules apply and must govern promotions only in the absence of contrary statutory provisions in the University statutes. They highlighted the limited number of posts and the need to adhere to statutory procedures; the Minutes and committee reports cannot override explicit statutory provisions in the Calicut University First Statutes.
Cited Precedents (2)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| J.K. Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of U.P. | 1961 SCR 185 | Positive | Cited to support interpretive approach that legislative intention and every part of a statute should have effect. |
| Maya Mathew v. State of Kerala | 2010 SCC 498 | Positive | Cited for the interpretive principle that every part of the statute should have effect and that legislative intent governs rule-making authority. |
Diagnostic Tool
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 Saheer Babu K.T. v. University of Calicut and others 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 A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR**
## **&**
**THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.**
**THURSDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 13TH PHALGUNA, 1942**
**WA.No.65 OF 2020**
**AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.12.2019 IN WP(C) 658/2015(F) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA**
## **APPELLANT/PETITIONER**
**SAHEER BABU K.T. AGED 48 YEARS**
**ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, THENHIPALAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.**
**BY ADVS.**
**SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.) SMT.NISHA GEORGE**
## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:**
- **1 THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, THENHIPALAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 505**
- **2 THE VICE CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, THENHIPALAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 505**
- **3 THE PRO VICE CHANCELLOR,UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, THENHIPALAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 505**
- **4 JAYAN PADASSERY,**
**ASSISTANT ENGINEER (CIVIL), UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, THENHIPALAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 505**
- **R1 BY ADV. SRI.ASOK M.CHERIAN**
- **R2 BY ADV. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY R3 BY ADV. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY(B/O) R4 BY ADV. SRI.T.B.HOOD R4 BY ADV. SMT.M.ISHA**
**THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25-02-2021, ALONG WITH WA.66/2020, WA.68/2020, WA.135/2020, THE COURT ON 04-03-2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
W.A.Nos.65, 66, 68 & 135/2020
2
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR**
## **&**
**THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.**
**THURSDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 13TH PHALGUNA, 1942**
## **WA.No.66 OF 2020**
**AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.12.2019 IN WP(C) 21439/2012(D) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA**
## **APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT:**
**SAHEER BABU K.T. AGED 48 YEARS**
**ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (CIVIL),UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, ENGINEERING SERVICE, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O., THEHNIPALA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-673 635**
**BY ADVS. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.) SMT.NISHA GEORGE**
## **RESPONDENTS/WRIT PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1,2 AND 4**
- **1 K. SIVADASAN AGED 49 YEARS**
- **ASSISTANT ENGINEER (CIVIL), ENGINEERING SERVICE, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O. THENHIPALAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-673 635**
- **2 THE REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O. THENHIPALAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-673 635**
- **3 THE VICE CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O. THENHIPALAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-673 635**
- **4 REKHA.P., ASSISTANT ENGINEER (CIVIL), UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT,ENGINEERING SERVICE, CALICUT UNIVERSITY**
W.A.Nos.65, 66, 68 & 135/2020
3
## **P.O. THENHIPALAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-673 635.**
## **ADDL.R5 IMPLEADED.**
**5 RENJITH K.L., AGE 45 YEARS,S/O.M.KUTTAPPAN,ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER(CIVIL), UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT,THENHIPALAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-673 635.**
**IS IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL 5TH RESPONDENT AS PER THE ORDER DATED 25.02.2021 IN I.A.NO.2/20 IN W.A.NO.66/2020.**
**R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.RAMESH R2 BY ADV. SRI.ASOK M.CHERIAN R3 BY ADV. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY R4 BY ADV. SRI. P. K MUHAMMED (B/O)**
**THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25-02-2021, ALONG WITH WA.65/2020, WA.68/2020, WA.135/2020, THE COURT ON 04-032021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
W.A.Nos.65, 66, 68 & 135/2020
4
# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR**
**&**
**THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.**
**THURSDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 13TH PHALGUNA, 1942**
## **WA.No.68 OF 2020**
**AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.12.2019 IN WP(C) 20814/2012(B) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA**
## **APPELLANT/4TH RESPONDENT:**
**SAHIRBABU K.T.**
**AGED 48 YEARS ASSISTANT ENGINEER (CIVIL), UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, THENHIPALAM-673635, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.**
**BY ADVS.**
**SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.) SMT.NISHA GEORGE**
## **RESPONDENTS/WRIT PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3,5 & 6:**
**1 JAYAN PADASSERI AGED 43 YEARS**
**ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER(CIVIL), UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, THENHIPALAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.**
- **2 THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, THENHIPALAM, 673635., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.**
**3 THE VICE CHANCELLOR UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, THENHIPALAM, 673635., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.**
- **4 THE SYNDICATE,**
**UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, REPRESENTED BY THE VICE CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY CAMPUS, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, THENHIPALAM, 673635., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.**
W.A.Nos.65, 66, 68 & 135/2020
5
- **5 SIVADASAN K**
**ASSISTANT ENGINEER(CIVIL), ENGINEERING SERVICE, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P O, THENHIPALAM, 673635., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.**
**6 REKHA P ASSISTANT ENGINEER(CIVIL), UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P O, THENHIPALAM, 673635., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.**
**R7 IMPLEADED.**
**7 RENJITH K.L. AGE 45 YEARS, S/O.M.KUTTAPPAN, ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER(CIVIL), UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT,THENHIPALAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-673 635.**
**IS IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL7TH RESPONDENT AS PER THE ORDER DATED 25.02.2021 IN I.A.NO.2/2O IN W.A.NO.68/2020.**
**R1 BY ADV. SRI.T.B.HOOD R1 BY ADV. SMT.M.ISHA R2 BY ADV. SRI.ASOK M.CHERIAN R3 BY ADV. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY R4 BY ADV. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY (B/O) R5 BY ADV. SRI.S.RAMESH**
**THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25-02-2021, ALONG WITH WA.65/2020, WA.66/2020, WA.135/2020, THE COURT ON 04-032021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
W.A.Nos.65, 66, 68 & 135/2020
6
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR**
**&**
## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.**
**THURSDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 13TH PHALGUNA, 1942**
## **WA.No.135 OF 2020**
**AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.12.2019 IN WP(C) 35250/2016(E) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA**
## **APPELLANT/NON-PARTY:**
**SAHEER BABU K.T., AGED 48 YEARS ASSISTANT ENGINEER, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O.THENHIPALAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-673 635.**
**BY ADVS. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.) SMT.NISHA GEORGE**
## **RESPONDENTS/WRIT PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS:**
- **1 REKHA P., AGED 49 YEARS,ASSISTANT ENGINEER (CIVIL), UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, ENGINEERING SERVICE, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O.THENHIPALAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-673 635.**
- **2 THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT ,CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O.THENHIPALAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-673 635.**
- **3 THE VICE CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O.THENHIPALAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-673 635.**
- **4 KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE**
W.A.Nos.65, 66, 68 & 135/2020
7
## **COMMISSION, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004.**
**5 JAYAN PADASSERY, ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, ENGINEERING SERVICE, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O.THENHIPALAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-673 635.**
**6 SIVADASAN K, ASSISTANT ENGINEER (CIVIL)UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, ENGINEERING SERVICE, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O.THENHIPALAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-673 635.**
## **ADDITIONAL R7 IMPLEADED**
**7 RENJITH K.L., AGE 45 YEARS,S/O.M.KUTTAPPAN,ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER(CIVIL), UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT,THENHIPALAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-673 635.**
**IS IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL 7TH RESPONDENT AS PER THE ORDER DATED 25.02.2021 IN I.A.NO.3/20 IN W.A.NO.135/2020.**
**R2 BY ADV. SRI.ASOK M.CHERIAN R2-3 BY ADV. STANDING COUNSEL (B/O) R3 BY ADV. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY R4 BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN (B/O) R5 BY ADV. SRI. T.B. HOOD (B/O) R5 BY ADV. SMT.M.ISHA R5 BY ADV. SRI.AMAL KASHA R6 BY ADV. SRI.S.RAMESH**
**THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25-02-2021, ALONG WITH WA.65/2020, WA.66/2020, WA.68/2020, THE COURT ON 04-03-2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
W.A.Nos.65, 66, 68 & 135/2020
8
## **JUDGMENT**
## **Gopinath, J**
These appeals arise out of the common judgment of a learned single judge of this Court in W.P.(C)No.21439/2012 and connected cases. A common issue arises for consideration which can be conveniently considered together.
2. The issue revolves around the interpretation to be placed on the statutory rules for promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer in the Calicut University following the amendment to the Calicut University First Ordinance in the year 2004. Following the amendment, the qualification is in the manner indicated below:-
|_Sl. No._<br>_(1)_|_Category/_<br>_post_<br>_(2)_|_Scale of pay_<br>_(3)_|_Minimum_<br>_qualification_<br>_(4)_|_Age_<br>_(5)_|_Appointing_<br>_Authority_<br>_(6)_|_Method of_<br>_recruitment_<br>_(7)_|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|_135_|_Asst._<br>_Executive_<br>_Engineer_|_7450-11425_|_As in Govt._<br>_Service_<br>_(PWD)_|_Not_<br>_more_<br>_than_<br>_35_<br>_years_|_Vice_<br>_Chancellor_|_By_<br>_promotion_<br>_from the_<br>_cadre of Asst._<br>_Engineer_<br>_based on_<br>_seniority and_<br>_qualification._<br>_In the_<br>_absence of_<br>_qualified_<br>_hands, by_<br>_direct_<br>_recruitment_|
3. The facts fall in a narrow compass. A vacancy arose in the cadre of Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil), in the Calicut University, on
W.A.Nos.65, 66, 68 & 135/2020
9
1.4.2011. A dispute arose between Diploma holders on one hand and Degree holders on the other, with the Degree holders contending that if they have the necessary qualification, then they are to be promoted in preference to the senior Diploma holders on account of their superior qualification. The Degree holders contend that a reading of the amended provisions under the column ' _method of recruitment'_ shows that if there are qualified Degree holders, they are to be given a preference.
4. The University promoted one Jayan Padasseri, a Diploma holder, as Assistant Executive Engineer. On an appeal by one Shaheer Babu, the appellant in these appeals, before the Syndicate of the University, the promotion granted to Jayan Padasseri was set aside and it was found that Shaheer Babu, who holds a Graduate degree was entitled to be promoted in preference to the senior Diploma holder. The Syndicate also directed that a separate seniority list shall be maintained in the feeder category for Diploma holders and Degree holders and that promotion will be made in a ratio between Diploma holders and Degree holders, on the premise that this is required in the light of the provisions contained in Kerala State & Subordinate Service Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'KS & SSR' for short) which is made applicable to the University by virtue of the provisions contained in Statute 2 of Chapter IV of Calicut University First Statutes.
5. Jayan Padasseri filed W.P.(C)No. 20814/2012 and one
W.A.Nos.65, 66, 68 & 135/2020
10
Sivadasan filed W.P.(C) No. 21439/2012 challenging the decision of the Syndicate. When the above writ petitions were pending, the Vice-Chancellor of the University decided that Jayan Padasseri was the one entitled to the promotion. Challenging that proposal, overlooking the decision of the Syndicate, Shaheer Babu preferred W.P.(C)No.658/2015. The connected W.P.(C)No.32450/2016 was filed by one Rekha.P, who was also a graduate in Engineering, contending that Degree holders were entitled to a preference, in the matter of promotion.
6. On examination of the contentions of the parties, the learned single Judge came to the conclusion that the correct interpretation to be placed on the Rules is that a senior qualified Diploma holder will have a right to be promoted over a junior qualified Degree holder and that no further benefit of being a Degree holder was available to claim preference over and in preference to the qualified Diploma holder.
7. Sri. George Poonthottam, Learned Senior Counsel, appearing on the instructions of Mr.Navaneeth Krishnan, for the appellant assails the findings of the Learned Single Judge _inter-alia,_ on the following grounds:-
(i) The term _'Seniority and qualification'_ under the head
_'method of recruitment'_ in the amended University
W.A.Nos.65, 66, 68 & 135/2020
11
Statutes means that the qualified Degree holder will have to be promoted in preference to a qualified Diploma holder. (The decisions in _**J.K. Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of U.P**_ ., (1961) 3 SCR 185 and that in _**Maya Mathew v. State of Kerala**_ , (2010) 4 SCC 498 are relied upon for the proposition that “..... _In the interpretation of statutes the court always presumes that the legislature inserted every part thereof for a purpose and the legislative intention is that every part of the statute should have effect. These presumptions will have to be made in the case of_
_rule-making authority also….” )_ ;
(ii) Statute II of Chapter IV of the Calicut University First Statutes, 1977 makes the provisions of KS & SSR, 1958 applicable to the persons in service of the University and therefore, that the provisions of the Kerala Engineering Service Special Rules are automatically made applicable to the University requiring the filling up of the vacancy in accordance with the quota between Degree holders and Diploma holders, under those Rules;
(iii) In the interpretation of statutory Rules every word used therein has to be given a specific meaning and therefore that the term of _'seniority and qualification'_ used in the amended provisions cannot be ignored by
W.A.Nos.65, 66, 68 & 135/2020
12
making the word _'qualification'_ redundant;
(iv) The Minutes of the Meeting of the Syndicate which preceded the amendment of the Rules will show the intention behind the amendment was to promote the qualified Degree holder ahead of a qualified & senior Diploma holder. (Reference is also made in this regard to the report of the ‘ _Dr.Philip Mathew committee_ ’ which recommended the amendment of the ordinance - Ext R.3(a) in W.P (C) 21439/2012)
8. On the other hand Sri.S.Ramesh and Sri.T.B Hood, Learned Counsel representing the Diploma holders contend that in the light of the stipulations in the amended provisions of the Statutes, seniority has to be given importance, subject only to the condition that the person concerned must have the qualifications prescribed for Assistant Executive Engineer (including the prescribed length of service in the feeder category) in the Public Works Department of the State of Kerala. They submit that the question of applying the rules of interpretation does not arise and that the minutes of the meetings of the Syndicate of the University or the recommendations of the ‘ _Dr.Philip Mathew committee_ ’ have any bearing on the issue as a plain reading of the amended Rules indicate that no preference was intended to be given to the Degree holders over the senior
W.A.Nos.65, 66, 68 & 135/2020
13
Diploma holders. They say that the question of applying a quota does not arise as unlike in the PWD Department there are not many posts of Assistant Executive Engineer in the University of Calicut.
9. We have considered the contentions raised by either side. At the outset, we may examine the provisions contained in the amended First Statutes providing for _'qualification and method of recruitment’_ of Assistant Executive Engineers in the University service. It is clear from a reading of the amended provisions that qualification must be one as prescribed in the Public Works Department of the State of Kerala. It is not disputed before us that the qualifications for Assistant Executive Engineers in the Public Works Department is contained in the Kerala Engineers Service Rules, 1965. For the post of Assistant Executive Engineers, the qualifications are as follows:-
_“Must possess any degree or diploma mentioned in item (i) or (ii) in the Annexure._
_OR_
_Must possess Draftsman's Certificate of the College of Engineering, Guindy (2 year course) or S.M.T Overseer's Certificate and must have put in a total service of 25 years in the Department out of which 12 ½ years must be as Assistant Engineer.”_
_**N.B:** Rule 4 of the Kerala Engineers Service Rules provides that an Assistant Engineer shall not be eligible for appointment as Assistant Executive Engineer unless he/she has experience in the manner prescribed. In the case of Degree holders, experience prescribed is three years while in the case of Diploma Engineer holders, the experience prescribed is seven years._
Going by the stipulations in the amended Statutes of the Calicut
W.A.Nos.65, 66, 68 & 135/2020
14
University, for promotion as Assistant Executive Engineer, the qualifications are (i) Degree holder with three years' experience or (ii) Diploma holder with seven years' experience. It is not disputed before us that the senior Diploma holder (Mr.Jayan Padasseri) was having the requisite experience on the date of occurrence of the vacancy of Assistant Executive Engineer. Now the only question is whether the entries under the column _'method of recruitment'_ in the amended special Rules would mean that when there are qualified Degree holders as well as qualified Diploma holders, the qualified Degree holder is entitled to promotion in preference to the senior most qualified Diploma holder. We would think not. On a plain reading of the amended provisions of the Rules and the entries under the head 'method of recruitment', the stipulation is promotion from the cadre of Assistant Executive Engineer on the basis of seniority and qualification. According to us, the stipulation under the head _'method of recruitment'_ does not in any manner provide that a Degree holder must be promoted in preference to a senior qualified Diploma holder. The submission as raised on behalf of the appellant, that in terms of the provisions contained in Statute No.2 of Chapter IV of the First Statutes the provisions of the KS & SSR have been made applicable and therefore that all the provisions of the Kerala Engineering Service Special Rules must be deemed to be incorporated is, in our opinion, only to be rejected. We must notice that the stipulations in the KS & SSR will apply only in the absence a contrary
W.A.Nos.65, 66, 68 & 135/2020
15
stipulation in the First Statutes. On a reading of the provisions contained in the First Statutes as amended in 2004, we have no hesitation to conclude that a qualified Degree holder has no claim to be promoted as Assistant Executive Engineer overlooking a senior qualified Diploma holder. That simply is not the intention of the Rules. We cannot, with reference to the Minutes of the Syndicate Meeting preceding the amendment of the Rule, hold that the intention of the Rule making authority was different. The Calicut University First Statutes have statutory force. We must therefore read the Rules as they appear and not in the light of any discussion which preceded the making of the Rule unless we were to find that a reference to those discussions may be necessary to understand any confusing provision in the Rules. According to us, there is no confusion in the intention of the Rules as expressed in the amended provisions of the Calicut University First Statute. It only provides that seniority shall be the criteria for promotion subject of course to the condition that the senior most person in the cadre of Assistant Engineer must hold the qualifications prescribed for promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer in the Public Works Department. When it is not disputed before us that the Diploma holder in question was qualified for being considered for promotion and it is also not disputed that he was senior to the appellant, the question of considering the Degree holder in preference to the Diploma holder simply does not arise. The principle laid
W.A.Nos.65, 66, 68 & 135/2020
16
down in the judgments cited at the bar by the Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants is unexceptionable. However we find that the said principle has no application in the facts of these cases. We, therefore, take the view that the finding of the Learned Single Judge is the correct one in law and that the judgment of the Learned Single Judge requires no interference whatsoever in an Intra Court appeal under Section 5 of the High Court Act. Writ Appeals fail and they are accordingly dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
## **A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE**
**Sd/-**
**GOPINATH P. JUDGE**
acd
W.A.Nos.65, 66, 68 & 135/2020 17
## **APPENDIX OF WA 65/2020**
## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:**
**ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTE DATED 11.11.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER U.O NO 17594/2019/ADMN DATED 17.12.2019 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER U.O NO 17911/2019/ADMN DATED 23.12.2019 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY**
W.A.Nos.65, 66, 68 & 135/2020
18
## **APPENDIX OF WA 66/2020**
## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:**
|**ANNEXURE-A1**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER**|
|---|---|
||**NO.U.O.NO.3116/2017/ADMIN DATED 06.03.2017**|
||**ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY**|
|**ANNEXURE-A2**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.60850/AD-A-ASST-**|
||**3/2013/CU DATED 03.02.2017 ISSUED BY THE**|
||**RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY**|
|**ANNEXURE-A3**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER**|
||**NO.U.O.NO.4630/2017/ADMN DATED 31.03.2017**|
||**ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY**|
|**ANNEXURE-A4**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTE DATED**|
||**11.11.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT**|
||**BEFORE THE HON'BLE COURT**|
|**ANNEXURE-A5**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER**|
||**U.O.NO.17594/2019/ADMN DATED 17.12.2019**|
|**ANNEXURE-A6**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER**|
||**U.O.NO.17911/2019/ADMN DATED 23.12.2109**|
||**PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY**|
W.A.Nos.65, 66, 68 & 135/2020
19
## **APPENDIX OF WA 68/2020**
## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:**
|**ANNEXURE A1**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.U.O.**|
|---|---|
||**NO.3116/2017/ADMIN DATED 06.03.2017 ISSUED**|
||**BY THE UNIVERSITY.**|
|**ANNEXURE A2**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 60850/AD-A-ASST-**|
||**3/2013/CU DATED 03.02.2017 ISSUED BY THE**|
||**RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY.**|
|**ANNEXURE A3**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. U O**|
||**NO.4630/2017/ADMN DATED 31.03.2017 ISSUED**|
||**BY THE RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY.**|
|**ANNEXURE A4**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTE DATED**|
||**11.11.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLATE**|
||**BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT.**|
|**ANNEXURE A5**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER U O NO.**|
||**17594/2019/ADMN DATED 17.12.2019 PASSED BY**|
||**THE RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY.**|
|**ANNEXURE A6**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER U O**|
||**NO.17911/2019/ADMN DATED 23.12.2019 PASSED**|
||**BY THE RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY.**|
W.A.Nos.65, 66, 68 & 135/2020
20
## **APPENDIX OF WA 135/2020**
## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:**
|**ANNEXURE A1**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO U.O.NO**|
|---|---|
||**3116/2017/ADMIN DATED 6.3.2017 ISSUED BY**|
||**THE UNIVERSITY**|
|**ANNEXURE A2**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO 60850/AD-A-ASST-**|
||**3/2013/CU DATED 3.2.2017 ISSUED BY THE**|
||**RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY**|
|**ANNEXURE A3**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO U NO**|
||**4630/2017/ADMIN DATED 31.3.2017 ISSUED BY**|
||**THE RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY**|
|**ANNEXURE A4**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTE DATED**|
||**11.11.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT**|
||**BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT**|
|**ANNEXURE A5**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER U.O NO**|
||**17594/2019/ADMN DATED 17.12.2019 PASSED BY**|
||**THE RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY**|
|**ANNEXURE A6**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER U.O.NO**|
||**17911/2019/ADMN DATED 23.12.2019 PASSED BY**|
||**THE RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY**|