High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeDisposed of; directions issued to consider the ...

Sumod M.S., Leni M.S. and Finto P.X. v. The Kerala Veterinary and Animal Science University and State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) No. 1201 of 2016

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date
2023-02-24
Court Decision / Holding
The writ petition is disposed of with directions: (i) The additional 2nd respondent is to consider the proposal bearing No.K.V.A.S.U/G.A/A3/10910/2020 dated 03.02.2021 and pass appropriate orders expeditiously, within four months from receipt of a copy of the judgment; (ii) Petitioners to produce a certified copy of this judgment along with the writ petition before the 2nd respondent for compliance.
Final Disposition
Disposed of; directions issued to consider the proposal for regularisation post creation of posts within four months; compliance via certified copies.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Sumod M.S.
  • Leni M.S.
  • Finto P.X.

Respondents

  • The Kerala Veterinary and Animal Science University, represented by its Registrar
  • State of Kerala, represented by the Secretary, Animal Husbandry and Dairy Department

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Sri. K. Ramakumar (Sr.)
  • • Sri. S. M. Prasanth
  • • Sri. G. Renjith

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Sri. Millu Dandapani, SC
  • • Sri K.V. and A.S. Uty Manu Govind, SC
  • • Sri K.M. Faisal, GP

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition (WP(C) No.1201/2016) challenges continued inaction by the Kerala Veterinary and Animal Science University in absorbing petitioners in regular service for posts in which they are presently employed (Processing Associates and Plant Operation Associate in the Meat Technology Unit). The petitioners contend denial of absorption violates their fundamental rights under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution, arguing long service since 1995–2001 and reliance on past directions from this Court in related matters (including W.P.(C) No.29639/2010) and a precedent from W.P.(C) No.36138/2005, where similar claimants were regularised. Counsel for petitioners maintains they were selected through due process and deserve regularisation given ongoing service. The respondent University counters that regularisation requires creation of posts and adherence to established procedures; it submits a proposal to create posts and maintain ongoing service, supported by departmental correspondence. The Court, invoking the principle discussed in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Uma Devi and others, notes that one-time regularisation is permissible in appropriate circumstances. Consequently, the Court disposes of the petition by directing the second respondent (State/implementing authority) to consider the University’s proposal No.KVASU/GA/A3/10910/2020 dated 03.02.2021 and pass orders within four months, directing the petitioners to furnish certified copies for compliance.

Provisions of Law Cited

Constitution of India: Articles 14, 16 and 21

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • One-time regularisation is possible (as per Uma Devi v. State of Karnataka)
  • Writ jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226
  • Doctrine of absorption through post creation / regularisation as a discretionary remedy

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submit that the inaction of the University in absorbing them into regular service breaches their fundamental rights under Articles 14, 16 and 21. They point to their long service (since 1995–2001) and rely on earlier court directions in related writ petitions (including W.P.(C) No.29639/2010) and a similar case (W.P.(C) No.36138/2005) wherein regularisation was ordered. They pray for certiorari to quash Exhibit P12 and a mandamus to appoint them in regular service. Respondents contend that regularisation requires creation of posts and adherence to due process; any absorption depends on administrative action and post-creation decisions.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents maintain the need to create posts or allocate existing vacancies; regularisation cannot be presumed; arrangement to consider the proposal for post creation is the appropriate remedial action.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Uma Devi and others2006 (4) SCC 1PositiveCourt relies on the Uma Devi decision to recognise that one-time regularisation is possible in appropriate cases.
W.P.(C) No. 36138/2005W.P.(C) No. 36138/2005Mentioned OnlyPrevious case cited as a reference showing similar grievance; not explicitly followed or distinguished in the present order.
W.P.(C) No. 29639/2010W.P.(C) No. 29639/2010Mentioned OnlyJudgment referenced as part of prior consideration of similar issues; not explicitly applied as binding authority in the present disposal.
WP (C) No. 28727 of 2014WP (C) No. 28727 of 2014Mentioned OnlyQuoted as a related judgment; used to contextualize earlier orders, without a direct application in the present case.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

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 Sumod M.S., Leni M.S. and Finto P.X. v. The Kerala Veterinary and Animal Science University and State of Kerala 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 P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 24[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 5TH PHALGUNA, 1944** ## **WP(C) NO. 1201 OF 2016** ## **PETITIONERS:** 1 SUMOD.M.S AGED 47 YEARS S/O. SUDHAKARAN, PROCESSING ASSOCIATE, DEPARTMENT OF LIVE STOCK PRODUCT TECHNOLOGY (MEAT TECHNOLOGY UNIT), COLLEGE OF VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCE, MANNUTHY P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 651, RESIDING AT MATTATHUM KATTIL HOUSE, NEELA MURI ROAD,PONNURUNNI, VYTTILA P.O., KOCHI-682 019. 2 LENI M.S. AGED 38 YEARS S/O. M.V.SIVAN, MEAT PROCESSING ASSOCIATE, DEPARTMENT OF LIVE STOCK PRODUCT TECHNOLOGY (MEAT TECHNOLOGY UNIT), COLLEGE OF VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCE, MANNUTHY P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 651, RESIDING AT MADATHIKUDI, VENGOOR P.O., KAIPPILLY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 546. 3 FINTO P.X. AGED 35 YEARS S/O. P.T.XAVIER, MEAT PLANT OPERATION ASSOCIATE, DEPARTMENT OF LIVE STOCK PRODUCT TECHNOLOGY (MEAT TECHNOLOGY UNIT), COLLEGE OF VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCE, MANNUTHY P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 651, RESIDING AT PORATHUR HOUSE, VETTUKADU P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 014. BY ADVS. SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.) SRI.S.M.PRASANTH SRI.G.RENJITH ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 THE KERALA VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCE UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, POOKODE P.O., WAYANAD WP(C) NO. 1201 OF 2016 2 DISTRICT-673 592. 2 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND DAIRYING DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (IS SUOMOTU IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL 2ND RESPONDENT IN THE WRIT PETITION AS PER ORDER DATED 24.02.2023) BY ADVS. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI,SC,K.V & A.S. UTY MANU GOVIND, SC, KERALA VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCES UNIVERSITY SRI.K.M.FAISAL, GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.02.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 1201 OF 2016 3 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.** **-----------------------------W.P.(C)No. 1201 of 2016 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 24[th ] day of February, 2023** ## **JUDGMENT** The above writ petition is filed with the following prayers: _“(i) To declare that the inaction on the part of the respondent University in appointing the petitioners herein in the respective posts in which they are presently working in the respondent University is in violation of their fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution._ _(ii) To call for the records leading upto Exhibit P12 and quash the same by the issuance of a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction._ _(iii) To issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondent University to appoint the petitioners in the regular service of the said University in the respective posts in which they are presently working forthwith._ _(iv) To issue such other writs, orders or directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”[SIC]_ WP(C) NO. 1201 OF 2016 4 2. The 1[st] and 2[nd] petitioners herein are working as Processing Associates and the 3[rd] petitioner as Plant Operation Associate in the Department of Live Stock Production Technology Department (Meat Technology Unit), of the 1[st] respondent University. They are aggrieved by the denial of absorption of them in the regular service of the respondent University in spite of a direction issued by this Court in W.P.(C)No.29639/ 2010. It is also the case of the petitioners that this Court had considered the grievance of a similar person in W.P.(C) No.36138/2005 and ordered the respondent University to regularize his service. A similar treatment is not given to the petitioners, is their grievance. Hence this Writ Petition is filed. 3. Heard counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned Standing counsel appearing for the 1[st] respondent and the learned Government Pleader. 4. Today when the matter came up for consideration, the Standing counsel appearing for the 1[st] WP(C) NO. 1201 OF 2016 5 respondent University submitted that the Registrar of the University submitted a letter to the Minister concerned for creating three posts to accommodate the temporary employees like the petitioners. In the light of the same, I think this writ petition itself can be disposed of directing the 2[nd] respondent to consider the request submitted by the 1[st] respondent. The Government will also consider the fact that the 1[st] petitioner is continuing from 1995 and the 2[nd] and 3[rd] petitioners are continuing from 2001 onwards. In _**Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Uma devi and others**_ [2006 (4) SCC 1], the Apex Court also observed that, one time regularisation is also possible. Here is the case where the 1[st] respondent clearly says that the petitioners are regularly working and if a post is created, they have no objection in regularising the petitioners to that post. If that is the case, the Government has to consider the matter sympathetically. The counsel appearing for the petitioners also submitted that the petitioners were WP(C) NO. 1201 OF 2016 6 appointed after following the due selection process. The same also will be considered by the 2[nd] respondent. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of in the following manner: i. The additional 2[nd] respondent is directed to consider the proposal submitted by the 1[st] respondent bearing No.K.V.A.S.U/G.A/A3/10910/ 2020 dated 03.02.2021 and pass appropriate orders in it, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. ii. The petitioners will produce a certified copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition before the 2[nd] respondent for compliance. Sd/- DM **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** WP(C) NO. 1201 OF 2016 7 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1201/2016** ## PETITIONER EXHIBITS |EXHIBIT-P1|TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED| |---|---| ||15.11.2012 IN WP (C) NO.36138 OF| ||2005.| |EXHIBIT-P2|TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED| ||BY THE RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY.| |EXHIBIT-P3|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED| ||04.07.1995 ISSUED TO THE 1ST| ||PETITIONER.| |EXHIBIT-P4|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED| ||29.11.2001 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT| ||UNIVERSITY.| |EXHIBIT-P5|TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED| ||22.10.2009 PROFESSOR AND HEAD TO THE| ||REGISTRAR OF THE UNIVERSITY.| |EXHIBIT-P6|TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED| ||12.8.2011 IN WPC NO.29639 OF 2010.| |EXHIBIT-P7|TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED| ||31.5.2014 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT| ||UNIVERSITY.| |EXHIBIT-P8|TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED| ||1.2.2013 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER| ||BEFORE THE RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY.| |EXHIBIT-P9|TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED| ||24.5.2014 FROM THE PROFESSOR & HEAD| ||ADDRESSED TO THE REGISTRAR OF THE| ||UNIVERSITY.| |EXHIBIT-P10|TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED| ||31.10.2014 IN WP (C) NO.28727 OF| ||2014.| |EXHIBIT-P11|TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED| WP(C) NO. 1201 OF 2016 8 2.12.2014] SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR OF THE UNIVERSITY. EXHIBIT-P12 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 24.02.2015 RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONERS FROM THE REGISTRAR OF THE UNIVERSITY. EXHIBIT-P13 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 19.02.2015 OF THE JOINT DIRECTOR, AUDIT DEPARTMENT. EXHIBIT-P14 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 19.9.2015 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE VICE CHANCELLOR, RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY. EXHIBIT-P15 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 20.05.2015 ISSUED BY THE PROFESSOR & HEAD TO THE DIRECTOR OF ACADEMICS & RESEARCH. RESPONDENT ANNEXURES ANNEXURE COMMUNICATION NO. KVASU/GA/A3/10910/2020 DATED 03.02.2021 FROM 1ST RESPONDENT //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE