Swapna P. Suresh and Others v. Kerala Veterinary and Animal Sciences University and The Registrar, Kerala Veterinary and Animal Sciences University (KVASU)

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY** **TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No.37385 OF 2018(W)** ## **PETITIONER/S:** - **1 SWAPNA P. SURESH, AGED 33 YEARS, RAYIRATH HOUSE, PANACHERRY P.O., PATTIKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 652.** - **2 RAMANI BABU, MANNANCHERY HOUSE, PATTALLAKUUNU, MANNUTHY P.O.-680 651, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** - **3 DEEPTHI K.S., KANJIRAKODAN HOUSE, NETTISSERY P.O., MAKKATTUKARA-680 651, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** - **4 SREEKALA K.S., PAYAMPATT HOUSE, MANNUTHY P.O.-680651, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** - **5 ANITHA P., ANITHA BHAVAN, PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, KUTTUR P.O., THIRUVALLA-689 106, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.** - **BY ADVS.** - **SRI. YASH THOMAS MANNULLY SRI.P.A.GIREESH KUMAR** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 KERALA VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCES UNIVERSITY, REP. BY THE REGISTRAR, LAKIDI P.O., PUKKODE, WYNAD DISTRICT - 673 576.** - **2 THE REGISTRAR,** - **KERALA VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCES UNIVERSITY, LAKIDI P.O., PUKKODE, WYNAD DISTRICT-673 576.** **R1-2 BY SMT.AYSHA YOUSEFF, STANDING COUNSEL** - **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON** - **10.12.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **W.P.(C)No.37385 of 2018** **2** ## **JUDGMENT** This writ petition is filed by the petitioners seeking direction to the respondent University to prepare a select list of casual labourers required for its various Departments and Units with due consideration/weightage to previous work experience as casual labourers under the 1[st] respondent, and to call for the records leading to the appointment of casual labourers from the select list prepared as per Ext.P2 notification as permanent employees with 1[st] respondent through Ext.P4 order and to quash Ext.P4 order, and for other related and consequential reliefs. Brief material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows: 2. According to the petitioners, they have worked as casual labourers in the University Livestock Farm and Fodder Research and Development Scheme Unit under the 1[st] respondent. As per Ext.P2 notification dated 24.04.2013, without following any guidelines and in an arbitrary manner, respondents initiated proceedings to regularize the casual labourers from the select list prepared. It is also pointed out that, the respondents have no authority to provide permanent job to persons included in the select list prepared under Ext.P2 ## **W.P.(C)No.37385 of 2018** ## **3** notification for appointment of casual/daily labourers on temporary basis without notifying the details of vacancies available, qualification criteria and selection process. It is also projected that, petitioners were illegally denied the right to participate in the selection process for the vacancies of permanent labourers with the respondent. So also, since the respondents have absorbed all the casual labourers included in the select list prepared, there is no list of casual labourers currently in force for appointment on daily wages temporarily, and such engagements are done on the whims and fancies of the concerned officers, which is arbitrary and illegal. 3. The respondents have filed a detailed counter affidavit, denying all the allegations raised by the petitioners. Among other contentions, it is stated that, the entire selection process with regard to the casual labourers was done in a very transparent manner without violating any rule in vogue, and as per Ext.P2 notification. The said notification was published in leading newspapers and also in the University website. Petitioners have also submitted applications and participated in the selection process as per the notification and secured Rank Nos.202, 188, 193, 191 ## **W.P.(C)No.37385 of 2018** ## **4** and 164 respectively. There were 359 persons in the female select list. Out of which, 115 candidates were engaged from the select list in accordance with the rank secured. Since the rank of the petitioners were below, they could not be engaged, and the select list has expired on 26.12.2017. 4. It is also submitted that, the University has not absorbed all the casual labourers in the select list, and the casual labourers were appointed in accordance with the vacancies available and need of each farm. After one year of posting of casual labourers, the respondent University prepared the seniority list of casual labourers in accordance with the relevant rules and later absorbed them as permanent labourers of the University according to the vacancies of permanent labourers available and need of each farm. That apart, it is pointed out that, the University has issued Ext.P4 order on 27.04.2017, as per which, a decision was taken to regularize the casual labourers with various criteria fixed thereunder, still awaiting ratification of the Board of Management of the University. The other allegations made against the respondents with respect to employment of casual labourers even now at their whims and fancies are all **W.P.(C)No.37385 of 2018** **5** denied. 5. A reply affidavit is filed by the petitioners, reiterating the stand adopted in the writ petition, and in the reply affidavit, a corruption allegation to the tune of Rs.40 Crores is also made. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the University, and perused the pleadings and the documents on record. 7. The prime contention advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners is relying upon the judgment of the apex court in ' _**Secretary, State of**_ _**Karnataka and Others v. Umadevi (3) and Others**_ ' [(2006) 4 SCC 1]. It is contended that, when posts are available for employment, a notification shall be issued and selection shall be conducted from among all the persons who have submitted applications. However, in the case on hand, the University has decided as per Ext.P4 order to regularize the casual labourers working with it in permanent posts. It is also alleged that the entire labourers as per the select list prepared in accordance with Ext.P4 order was appointed by the University. Therefore, the entire action of the University is bad. **W.P.(C)No.37385 of 2018** **6** 8. It is also pointed out that, since the entire action of the University is arbitrary and illegal, there is no requirement for making the appointed persons as parties to this writ petition. It is further stated that, petitioners have sought for an interim relief to provide the list of persons appointed by the University as labourers as per the list drawn in accordance with Ext.P4 order. Therefore, according to the petitioners, the entire action on the part of the University in making permanent appointment of the labourers is a corrupt practice, and such a contention is advanced by the petitioners in its reply affidavit filed. 9. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the University submitted that, the issue with respect to drawing up of list on the basis of Ext.P4 order of the University was considered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.6199 of 2014 and other connected cases, and disposed of as per the judgment dated 12.07.2019, whereby the list drawn by the University as per the very same notification was upheld, and the said judgment was affirmed by a Division Bench of this Court as well as the apex court. It is also pointed out that, petitioners have also **W.P.(C)No.37385 of 2018** **7** participated in the selection process in accordance with Ext.P4 order and they were also included in the ranked list prepared for appointment. However, since they were lower down in the rank list, they could not be appointed. It is also submitted that, there is no allegation of corruption made by the petitioners in the writ petition, and in the reply affidavit filed, a blunt allegation is made that the appointment is the outcome of corruption to the tune of Rs.40 crores. 10. I have evaluated the rival submissions made across the Bar. In my considered opinion, in ' _**Umadevi (3)**_ ' ( _supra_ ), the apex court had considered the question whether the casual workers/contract engagements etc. etc. can be regularized on the basis of the direction sought for by the petitioners. It is true, the apex court has held that, when there is any scope for public employment, the same shall be notified and all the qualified persons in accordance with the notification are entitled to participate in the employment process. However, so far as the case on hand is concerned, it is an admitted fact that petitioners and other similarly situated persons working as casual labourers in various farms for several years together were decided to be absorbed by **W.P.(C)No.37385 of 2018** **8** publishing a notification in all leading papers by the University, and as per Ext.P4 order, a decision was taken specifying criteria to make permanent appointments by drawing up a list. It was accordingly that the list was drawn up. The list had a validity period of three years and the same has expired also. It is an undisputed fact. It is also clear from the pleadings put forth by the respondents that petitioners have also participated in the selection process and they were also ranked in the list. However, they could not secure employment, since they were lower down in the list and the rank list has expired. 11. According to the University, at present there are no vacant posts available for regularizing the casual employees. Taking into account the above aspects, I am of the considered opinion that, having participated in the selection process as per Ext.P2 notification, petitioners are not at liberty to turn around and attack the selection process conducted by the University to regularize the labourers who were working in various farms of the University. It is also clear that, as per the ranked list, appointments were made some time back and even promotion lists are also **W.P.(C)No.37385 of 2018** **9** prepared in accordance with the qualification. Petitioners have not cared to make the affected persons as parties in this writ petition. Even though it is clear from the averments made by the petitioners itself that there is a group of persons appointed to the posts on account of a ranked list, the reason assigned for not making them parties is that, the selection is an outcome of corruption and there is no requirement for making the selected persons as parties to the writ petition. However, there is no allegation made by the petitioners in the writ petition that there was any corruption on the part of the respondents in making the appointments. But, such a contention is raised only in the reply affidavit filed by the petitioners. The contention raised in the reply affidavit cannot be termed as part of the pleadings and petitioners have not cared to amend the writ petition by incorporating such contentions. 12. So also, except the blunt contention made in the reply affidavit that the appointments are the outcome of corruption to the tune of Rs.40 crores, there is no basis or foundation for the same, and the petitioners have not produced any evidence to show that the appointments were made by receiving bribe by the ## **W.P.(C)No.37385 of 2018** ## **10** officers of the University. Moreover, it is not stated in the reply affidavit the details of any persons who have received the bribe. None of the officers are also made parties in person, in order to entertain such a contention. 13. Taking into account all the above aspects, I am of the considered opinion that, petitioners have not made out any case of arbitrariness or illegality, justifying interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is also equally important to note that, the drawing up of the rank list on the basis of the selection conducted in accordance with the publication made was a subject matter of challenge before this Court in the writ petition specified above, and the selection conducted was in fact upheld by a learned Single Judge, which was affirmed by a Division Bench of this Court and the Special Leave Petition filed by the aggrieved persons was also dismissed by the apex court. In that view of the matter, I do not think petitioners have made out a case justifying interference of this Court exercising the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. **W.P.(C)No.37385 of 2018 11** The writ petition fails, accordingly it is dismissed. However, I make it clear that, if the petitioners are still qualified and the University is engaging casual employees for operation of its farms at various places, any application submitted by the petitioners shall also be considered for daily or casual employment. **Sd/-** ## **SHAJI P.CHALY** **JUDGE** **St/-11.12.2019** **W.P.(C)No.37385 of 2018** **12** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATES ISSUED TO PETITIONERS BY CENTRE FOR ADVANCED STUDIES IN POULTRY SCIENCE UNDER FIRST RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 24.4.2013 NUMBERED KVASU/LO/3006/2012 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF 7TH ESTABLISHMENT COMMITTEE MEETING OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT HELD ON 4.10.2017.** - **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.4.2017 NUMBERED GA/LO/1832/2017 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 9.1.2018 NUMBERED KVASU/GA-D/3913/2017(1) ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.** ## **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL**