SASI B v. Kerala Agricultural University and Others

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** **FRIDAY, THE 22[ND] DAY OF JULY 2022 / 31ST ASHADHA, 1944** **WP(C) NO. 22472 OF 2022** ## **PETITIONER:** **SASI B, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. KARIYAN B., KUNDAMKUZHY HOUSE, PARAKKALAAYI (PO), VIA ANANDASRAMAM, KASARGOD DISTRICT-671531.** **BY ADVS.SURESH KUMAR KODOTH SUKARNAN** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, VELLANIKKARA, THRISSUR, PIN-680656.** - **2 ASSOCIATE DEAN, KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE, PADANNAKKAD P.O., KASARGOD DISTRICT, PIN-671328.** - **3 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695001.** - **4 DIRECTOR FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695001.** **ADVs. M.V. ANAND-SC; KAU SRI.ROBSON PAUL,** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **WP(C) NO. 22472 OF 2022** **-2-** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner impugns Ext.P7 order issued by the 4[th] respondent - Director of Social Justice, disallowing his request, made before the Kerala Agricultural University (University), to regularize him in their services on the ground that he is a physically handicapped person who has worked long periods in the past on temporary basis. 2. Sri.Suresh Kumar Kodoth – learned counsel for the petitioner, explained that, taking note of his client's rather pathetic situation, the Executive Council of the University adopted Ext.P4 Resolution, deciding to request the Government to offer regularization to his client; consequent to which, same was forwarded to the Government for appropriate action. He says that, as is evident from Ext.P5, the Government, thereafter, sought ## **WP(C) NO. 22472 OF 2022** **-3-** certain information from the University, which, his client understands, had been furnished; but that, instead of considering any of the aspects in its proper perspective, Ext.P7 order was thereafter issued, peremptorily rejecting his client's request. He, therefore, prayed that Ext.P7 be set aside. 3. The learned Standing Counsel for the University – Sri.M.V.Anandan, submitted that petitioner cannot have any cause of action against his client, because they have done everything possible to help him. He, therefore, prayed that no further orders be issued against his client. 4. Smt.Parvathy Kottol – learned Government Pleader, submitted that Ext.P7 was not issued without consideration of the relevant facts; but that it was based on Ext.P6 report. She added that there was an earlier Scheme, through which, persons who were appointed through the Employment ## **WP(C) NO. 22472 OF 2022** **-4-** Exchange between 1999 and 2003 were granted regularization; but that this will not _ipso facto_ enure to the petitioner, who was engaged by the University only in the year 2010. She, therefore, prayed that this writ petition be dismissed. 5. When I evaluate the afore rival submissions, it is indubitable that petitioner does not have a legally guaranteed right for regularization, even under the declarations of law of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Secretary, State** ## **of Karnataka v. Umadevi** [(2006) 4 SCC]. 6. This is because he entered service in the year 2010 for a period of 179 days and was terminated thereafter, to be reappointed on similar terms, a month thereafter. He says that, while he was in service, Government issued the aforementioned order regularizing physically disabled provisional employees, who had worked between 16.08.1999 to 21.12.2003 and therefore, ## **WP(C) NO. 22472 OF 2022** **-5-** that he was also entitled to be so considered. I am afraid that this contention of the petitioner cannot find favour with this Court, because said order has not been challenged, which confines the benefit to those people who had worked between 16.08.1999 and 21.12.2003 only. 7. That said, however, the University appears to have taken a decision in favour of the petitioner and to have forwarded the same to the Government. The Government did not take a decision on it, but it appears to have been forwarded to the 4[th] respondent, who rejected it through Ext.P7, based on Ext.P6, which is a General Report to the effect that only those persons who come within the ambit of the afore Scheme of Regularization can be granted the benefit. 8. I am, therefore, of the firm view that the specific case of the petitioner ought to have been considered by the Government, particularly when it ## **WP(C) NO. 22472 OF 2022** **-6-** is supported by Ext.P4 Resolution of the University. It is also pertinent that, based on such resolution, Government had sought for certain additional information, which is stated to have been furnished. 9. In the afore circumstances, I deem it necessary that entire matter be reconsidered by the competent Authority, after hearing the petitioner, as also the University. Resultantly, I order this writ petition and set aside Ext.P7; with a consequential direction to the 4[th] respondent or any other competent Authority, to reconsider the request of the University, as made by them through Ext.P4, adverting to the additional informations furnished by them, if any, pursuant to Ext.P5; thus culminating in an appropriate new order and necessary action thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than three months from the ## **WP(C) NO. 22472 OF 2022** **-7-** date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. I, however, add that this Court has not declared any right in favour of the petitioner affirmatively; but that his case must be considered with the empathy which he deserves, adverting to the resolution of the University. **Sd/DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE** akv ## **WP(C) NO. 22472 OF 2022** **-8-** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22472/2022** ## **PETITIONER EXHIBITS** EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DISABILITY CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY DISTRICT DISABILITY BOARD KASARGOD DATED 28/05/2003. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS DATED 12/11/2010 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE DATED 06/06/2019 ISSUED BY PROFESSOR (ACADEMIC) OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT COLLEGE. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 23/01/2019. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 11/06/2020 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT FILE NO.AGRIAF2/114/2020-AGRI-PART(1) SUBMITTED BY THE GOVERNMENT. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 26.05.2021 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 21/11/2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE MINISTER FOR AGRICULTURE. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 15/11/2016 GIVEN BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT. **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS : NIL.** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A. TO JUDGE**