Sheeba M.M. & others v. Cochin University of Science and Technology and others
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- Anu Sivaraman
- Judgment Date
- 2021-06-30
- Court Decision / Holding
- There will be a direction to the 3rd respondent to take up, consider and pass orders on Ext. P5 representation submitted by the petitioners with notice to the petitioners and after hearing the petitioners’ representative through any appropriate means, including video conferencing, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Division Bench decision in Biju C.V. v. Jashna K.J and others (2021 (2) KHC 550) shall also be considered while passing orders. Till such time as the orders are passed, the petitioners shall be permitted to continue in service.
- Final Disposition
- Writ petition disposed with directions to consider Ext. P5 and allow petitioners to continue in service pending orders; to pass orders within two months after hearing.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- SHEEBA.M.M
- DILSHA CHANDRAN
- ANITHA G.
- BEENA MP
- I.C. GANESHAN
- KALESH KUMAR V R
- VIJESH K.B.
- BIJU SREEDHARAN A
- VINAYAN C.K.
- SAJI.K. J.
- SUDHEESH KUMAR PS
- SURESH PM
- VIJU MT
- YESUDAS KA
- FIROZ KR
- SAJEEV C
- AGEETHA OS
- MANJU KS
- SAJANI KU
- SUJA MS
- RAJANI NP
- NISHA VA
- ANEESH KG
- SHOBIKA MM
- JENCY GEORGE
- JINESH BK
- ANILMON.M.
- ARUN C KARTHIK
Respondents
- Cochin University of Science and Technology, represented by its Registrar, South Kalamassery, Kochi 682 022
- Vice Chancellor, Cochin University of Science and Technology, South Kalamassery, Kochi 682 022
- Registrar, Cochin University of Science and Technology, South Kalamassery, Kochi 682 022
- Kerala Public Service Commission, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram 695 004, represented by Secretary
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • John K. George
- • K.S. Arun Kumar
- • Justine Jacob
- • Amrutha K P
Case Synopsis & Summary
This writ petition is filed by twenty-eight petitioners challenging provisional daily-wage appointments as sweeper cum cleaners in the Cochin University of Science and Technology (CUSAT) and seeking conversion of their engagement into permanent posts, as well as consideration of their Ext. P5 representation. The petitioners were included in Ext. P1, a ranked list published on 28/12/2018 for the post of sweeper cum cleaner, and were granted provisional appointments on daily wages with their term due to end on 02/07/2021. They approached the third respondent with Ext. P5 dated 16/06/2021, seeking timely consideration of their representation before termination and a mandamus to convert their appointments to permanent posts. The University counters that Ext. P5 will be considered by the competent authority in accordance with law, citing the need to follow due process. The judgment refers to Biju C.V. v. Jashna K.J and others (2021 (2) KHC 550) to support the right of ranked-list holders in provisional appointments. The court directs the third respondent to consider Ext. P5 after giving notice and hearing to the petitioners, preferably via video conferencing, within two months of receiving the judgment. Till orders are issued, petitioners are to continue in service. The Division Bench decision is to be considered while passing orders.
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioners submit that they are included in Ext. P1 ranked list prepared for appointment to the post of sweeper cum cleaner in the University and were granted provisional appointments on daily wages. With the term of engagement ending on 02.07.2021, they contend that the University still requires their services and have submitted Ext. P5 dated 16.06.2021 for consideration before termination. They seek a writ of mandamus to convert their provisional appointments into permanent posts and to permit them to continue in the present posts until a final decision is taken. They urge that Ext. P5 be treated with due process and that their representations be considered expeditiously.
Contentions of Respondents
The University’s Standing Counsel contends Ext. P5 will be considered by the competent authority in accordance with law. He relies on the Division Bench decision in Biju C.V. v. Jashna K.J and others (2021 (2) KHC 550) to illustrate that right of ranked-list holders for provisional appointments may be recognized and must be considered. He submits that the University will consider Ext. P5 and that the court should ensure due process, including hearing the petitioners through appropriate means.
Cited Precedents (1)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Biju C.V. v. Jashna K.J and others | 2021 (2) KHC 550 | Positive | Cited as authority to support the petitioners’ right to have their representation considered and to continue provisional appointments until final orders are passed. |
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 Sheeba M.M. & others v. Cochin University of Science and Technology and others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.