WA Nos. 108/2019 and connected cases (High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam)

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH** **WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2020 / 30TH VAISAKHA, 1942** **WA.No.108 OF 2019** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.12.2018 IN WP(C) 19030/2015(C) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA** ## **APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT IN THE WPC:** **DR.SHIBU.K.JACOB ASSISTANT PROFESSOR & CENTRE CO-ORDINATOR, CENTRE FOR LIVESTOCK DEVELOMENT & POLICY RESEARCH, DIRECTORATE OF DIARY DEVELOPMENT, PATTOM, (NOW WORKING AS ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, REGIONAL RESEARCH AND TRAINING CENTRE, KERALA VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCES UNIVERSITY, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN 695 004.** **BY ADVS. SMT.V.P.SEEMANDINI (SR.) SRI.K.P.RAJEEVAN** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT IN THE WPC/PETITIONER IN THE WPC:** - **1 KERALA VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCES UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, POOKODE, LAKKIDI, WAYANAD, PIN 673 576** **2 DR. REJITHA JOSEPH, D/O. JOSEPH MATHEW P, PUTHENPURAKAL HOUSE, ACN-100, ANGAMALY CENTER NAGAR, ANGAMALY P.OI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683572.** **R1 BY SMT.AYSHA YOUSEFF, SC, KERALA VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCES UNIVERSITY R2 BY ADV. ADV.P.C.SASIDHARAN(BY ORDER)** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28-01-2020, ALONG WITH WA.116/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 20-052020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WA No.108/2019 & conn.cases -:2:- ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH** **WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2020 / 30TH VAISAKHA, 1942** ## **WA.No.116 OF 2019** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.12.2018 IN WP(C) 19908/2014(K) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA** ## **APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN THE WPC:** **DR. SHIBU.K.JACOB ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, REGIONAL RESEARCH AND TRAINING CENTRE, KERALA VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCES UNIVERSITY, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695004.** **BY ADVS. SRI.K.P.RAJEEVAN SMT.V.P.SEEMANDINI (SR.)** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN THE WPC:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, AGRICULTURE (AH) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001.** **2 THE KERALA VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCE UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, POOKODE, LAKKIDI, WAYANAD, PIN673576.** WA No.108/2019 & conn.cases -:3:- - **3 THE MANAGEMENT COUNCIL KERALA VETERINARY ND ANIMAL SCIENCES UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE CHANCELLOR, POOKODE, LAKKIDI, WAYANAD, PIN-673576.** - **4 DR.REJITHA JOSEPH DAUGHTER OF JOSEPH MATHEW.P, PUTHENPURACKAL HOUSE, ACN-100, ANGAMALY CENTER NAGAR, ANGAMALY.P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683572.** **R1 BY B. VINOD, SR. GP R2-3 BY SMT.AYSHA YOUSEFF, SC, KERALA VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCES UNIVERSITY R4 BY ADV. ADV.P.C.SASIDHARAN(BY ORDER)** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28-012020, ALONG WITH WA.108/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES THE COURT ON 20-05-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WA No.108/2019 & conn.cases -:4:- ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH** **WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2020 / 30TH VAISAKHA, 1942 WA.No.155 OF 2019** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.12.2018 IN WP(C) 15580/2014(V) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA** ## **APPELLANT/7TH PETITIONER:** **DR.DEEPA CHIRAYATH ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, COLLEGE OF VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCES, MANNUTHY, THRISSUR** **BY ADVS. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY SMT.N.SANTHA SRI.V.VARGHESE SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO SRI.S.A.ANAND SMT.L.ANNAPOORNA SHRI.VISHNU V.K. KUM.ABHIRAMI K. UDAY** ## **RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS 1 TO 6 AND 8 TO 12/RESPONDENTS:** **1 DR.LIGIMOL JAMES ACADEMIC CONSULTANT, DEPARTMENT OF MICROBIOLOGY, COLLEGE OF DIARY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, MANNUTHY, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 651** WA No.108/2019 & conn.cases -:5:- - **2 DR.DIVYA M.P. ACADEMIC CONSULTANT, DEPARTMENT OF DAIRY CHEMISTRY, COLLEGE OF DIARY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, MANNUTHY, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 651** - **3 DR.RACHANA C.R. ACADEMIC CONSULTANT, DEPARTMENT OF DAIRY CHEMISTRY, COLLEGE OF DIARY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, MANNUTHY, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 651** - **4 JAYADEVAN G.R., ACADEMIC CONSULTANT, DEPARTMENT OF DAIRY BUSINESS MANAGEMENT, COLLEGE OF DIARY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, MANNUTHY, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 651** - **5 DR.SMITHA J.P. ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, COLLEGE OF VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCES,POOKODE, WAYANAD DISTRICT-673 121** - **6 DR.ABRAHAM JOSEPH PELLISSERY ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, COLLEGE OF VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCES, MANNUTHY, THRISSUR-680651** - **7 DR.MINI BHARATHAN, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, COLLEGE OF VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCES, MANNUTHY, THRISSUR-680651** - **8 DR.JANUS A., ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, COLLEGE OF VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCES, MANNUTHY, THRISSUR-680651** - **9 DR.T.P.SETHUMADHAVAN HEAD PUBLICATIONS, DIRECTORATE ENTREPRENEURSHIP, COLLEGE OF VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCES, MANNUTHY, THRISSUR-680651** - **10 DR.JOSE JOSEPH ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, COLLEGE OF VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCES, MANNUTHY, THRISSUR-680651** WA No.108/2019 & conn.cases -:6:- - **11 SMT.SALINI GOPINATH ACADEMIC CONSULTANT, COLLEGE OF DAIRY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, MANNUTHY, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 651** - **12 KERALA VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCES UNIVERSITY POOKODE, LAKKIDI,WAYANAD-673 576, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR** - **13 THE REGISTRAR BOARD OF MANAGEMENT, KERALA VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCES UNIVERSITY,POOKODE, LAKKIDI, WAYANAD-673 576** - **14 VICE CHANCELLOR, KERALA VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCES UNIVERSITY POOKODE, LAKKIDI, WAYAND-673 576** - **15 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT-695 001** **R5 BY ADV. SRI.O.V.RADHAKRISHNAN (SR.), K.RADHAMANI AMMA, P.KRISHNANKUTTY NAIR R5 BY ADV. SRI.P.KRISHNANKUTTY NAIR (KOLLAMALA)** **R10 BY ADV. SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN R10 BY ADV. SRI.DEEPU LAL MOHAN R12-14 BY SMT.AYSHA YOUSEFF, SC, KERALA VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCES UNIVERSITY R15 BY SRI. B. VINOD SR.GP** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28-012020, ALONG WITH WA.108/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 20-05-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WA No.108/2019 & conn.cases -:7:- ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH** **WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2020 / 30TH VAISAKHA, 1942 WA.No.169 OF 2019** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.12.2018 IN WP(C) 14174/2015(V) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA** ## **APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO.4 IN WPC:** **DR.SMITHA J.P., ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF VETERINARY EPIDEMIOLOGY AND PREVENTIVE MEDICINE, COLLEGE OF VETERNINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCE, POOKODE, WAYANAD-673576.** **BY ADVS. SRI.O.V.RADHAKRISHNAN (SR.) SMT.K.RADHAMANI AMMA SRI.H.VISHNUDAS SRI.P.KRISHNANKUTTY NAIR (KOLLAMALA)** ## **RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 & 5 IN THE WPC:** **1 DR.ANUMOL JOSEPH, W/O.DR.SIBY PHILIP, MUKKATTU HOUSE, MANDALAMP.O, NADUVILA(VIA), KANNUR-670582.** **2 REGISTRAR, KERALA VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCES UNIVERSITY, POOKODE, LAKIDI.P.O., NADUVILA(VIA), KANNUR-673 576** WA No.108/2019 & conn.cases -:8:- - **3 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.** **4 DR.S.SULFICAR, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF VETERNINARY AND EPIDEMIOLOGY AND PREVENTIVE MEDICINE, COLLEGE OF VETERNIARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCES, MANNUTHY-680651. RESIDING AT FLAT.NO.2D4, GRACE PARK, KOORKANCHERRY.P.O, THRISSUR-680325.** - **5 DR. JUSTIN DAVIS K., ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF VETERINARY AND EPIDEMIOLOGY AND PREVENTIVE MEDICINE, COLLEGE OF VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCES, MANNUTHY, THRISSUR-680651.** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.ISAAC KURUVILA(BY ORDER) R2 BY SMT.AYSHA YOUSEFF, SC, KERALA VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCES UNIVERSITY R3 BY SRI. B. VINOD SR. GP R5 BY SRI. SUNIL NAIR** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28-012020, ALONG WITH WA.108/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 20-05-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WA No.108/2019 & conn.cases -:9:- ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH** **WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2020 / 30TH VAISAKHA, 1942** ## **WA.No.193 OF 2019** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.12.2018 IN WP(C) 15580/2014(V) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA** ## **APPELLANT/11TH WRIT PETITIONER:** **DR.JOE JOSEPH, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, COLLEGE OF VETEINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCES, MANNUTHY, THRISSUR.** **BY ADVS. SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN SRI.DEEPU LAL MOHAN** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS AND WRIT PETITIONERS 1 TO 10 & 12:** **1 KERALA VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCES UNIVERSITY, POOKODE, LAKKIDI, WAYANAD - 673 576. REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.** **2 THE REGISTRAR, BOARD OF MANAGEMENT, KERALA VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCES UNIVERSITY, POOKODE, LAKKIDI, WAYANAD- 673 576.** WA No.108/2019 & conn.cases -:10:- - **3 THE VICE CHANCELLOR, KERALA VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCES UNIVERSITY, POOKODE, LAKKIDI, WAYANAD- 673 576.** - **4 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.** - **5 DR. LIJIMOL JAMES, ACADEMIC CONSULTANT, DEPARTMENT OF MICROBIOLOGY, COLLEGE OF DIARY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, MANNUTHY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 680 651.** - **6 DR. DIVYA M.P., ACADEMIC CONSULTANT, DEPARTMENT OF DIARY CHEMISTRY, COLLEGE OF DIARY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, MANNUTHY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 680 651.** - **7 DR. RACHANA C.R., ACADEMIC CONSULTANT, DEPARTMENT OF DIARY CHEMISTRY, COLLEGE OF DIARY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, MANNUTHY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 680 651.** - **8 JAYADEVAN G.R., ACADEMIC CONSULTANT, DEPARTMENT OF DIARY BUSINESS MANAGEMENT, COLLEGE OF DIARY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, MANNUTHY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 680 651.** - **9 DR. SMITHA J.P., ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, COLLEGE OF VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCES, POOKODE, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 673 576.** WA No.108/2019 & conn.cases -:11:- - **10 DR. ABRAHAM JOSEPH PELLISSERY, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, COLLEGE OF VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCES, POOKODE, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 673 576.** - **11 DR. DEEPA CHIRAYATH, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, COLLEGE OF VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCES, MANNUTHY, THRISSUR. 680 651.** - **12 DR. MINI BHARATHAN, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, COLLEGE OF VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCES, MANNUTHY, THRISSUR. 680 651.** - **13 DR. JANUS A., ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, COLLEGE OF VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCES, MANNUTHY, THRISSUR. 680 651.** - **14 SR.T.P. SETHUMADHAVAN, HEAD PUBLICATIONS, DIRECTORATE OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP, COLLEGE OF VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCES, MANNUTHY, THRISSUR. 680 651.** - **15 SMT. SALINI GOPINATH, ACADAMIC CONSULTANT, COLLEGE OF DIARY SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGY, MANNUTHY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 680 651.** **R1-3 BY SMT.AYSHA YOUSEFF, SC, KERALA VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCES UNIVERSITY R4 BY SRI. B. VINOD SR. GP R9 BY ADV. SRI.O.V.RADHAKRISHNAN (SR.) R9 BY ADV. SMT.K.RADHAMANI AMMA R9 BY ADV. SRI.P.KRISHNANKUTTY NAIR (KOLLAMALA) R11 BY ADV. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY R11 BY ADV. SMT.N.SANTHA R11 BY ADV. SRI.V.VARGHESE R11 BY ADV. SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO R11 BY ADV. SRI.S.A.ANAND R11 BY ADV. SMT.K.N.REMYA** WA No.108/2019 & conn.cases -:12:- **R11 BY ADV. SMT.L.ANNAPOORNA R11 BY ADV. SHRI.VISHNU V.K. R11 BY ADV. SMT.ABHIRAMI K. UDAY** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28-012020, ALONG WITH WA.108/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 20-05-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WA No.108/2019 & conn.cases -:13:- ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2020 / 30TH VAISAKHA, 1942 WA.No.241 OF 2019** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.12.2018 IN WP(C) 565/2015(U) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA** ## **APPELLANT/PETITIONER:** **DR.C.SUNENDA ACADEMIC CONSULTANT, COLLEGE OF VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCE, MANNUTHY, RESIDING AT USHUS, INDIRA NAGAR, STREET II MANNUTHY, P.O., THRISSUR 51.** **BY ADVS. SRI.P.V.JAYACHANDRAN SRI.NIDHI BALACHANDRAN SMT.G.N.DEEPA** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:** **1 THE BOARD OF MANAGEMENT KERALA VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCE UNIVERSITY, POOKODE, LAKIDI P.O., WYNAD 673 576, REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE CHANCELLOR.** WA No.108/2019 & conn.cases -:14:- **2 THE REGISTRAR KERALA VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCE UNIVERSITY, POOKODE, LAKIDI P.O., WYNAD 673 576.** **R1-2 BY SMT.AYSHA YOUSEFF, SC, KERALA VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCES UNIVERSITY** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28-012020, ALONG WITH WA.108/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 20-05-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WA No.108/2019 & conn.cases -:15:- ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2020 / 30TH VAISAKHA, 1942 WA.No.244 OF 2019** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 15112/2014(L) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA** ## **APPELLANT/NOT PARTY TO THE WRIT PETITION:** **DR.DEEPA CHIRAYATH, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF CLINICAL MEDICINE, ETHICS AND JURISPRUDENCE, COLLEGE OF VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCES, MANNUTHY, THRISSUR.** **BY ADVS. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY SMT.N.SANTHA SRI.V.VARGHESE SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO SRI.S.A.ANAND SMT.L.ANNAPOORNA SHRI.VISHNU V.K. KUM.ABHIRAMI K. UDAY** WA No.108/2019 & conn.cases -:16:- ## **RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 5:** - **1 DR.DIVYA.P.D., ASSISTANT PROFESSOR (ON CONTRACT), DEPARTMENT OF VETERINARY BIOCHEMISTRY, COLLEGE OF VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCES, MANNUTHY - 680 651.** - **2 DR.SREELAKSHMI C.M. ASSISTANT PROFESSOR (ON CONTRACT), DEPARTMENT OF VETERINARY ANIMAL HUSBANDRY EXTENSION, COLLEGE OF VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCES, MANNUTHY-680651.** - **3 DR.RATHEESH R.L. GANGOTHRI, KUNNANNOOR, CHANDRA NAGAR P.O., PALAKKAD-678007.** - **4 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SPECIAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LAW (LEGISLATION (I) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** - **5 THE KERALA VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCES UNIVERSITY,REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, POOKODE, WAYANAD-673 121.** - **6 THE MANAGEMENT COUNCIL KERALA VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCES UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE CHANCELLOR, POOKODE, WAYANAD-673 121.** - **7 SMT.SALINIO GOPINATH AGED 38 YEARS W/O.S.R.SHYAM SURAJ, RESIDING AT F-11, INDUS GARDENS, VIYYOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT – 680010.** WA No.108/2019 & conn.cases -:17:- **8 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AGRICULTURE (AHF) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** **R1 TO 3 BY SRI. P.C. SASIDHARAN R4, R8 BY SRI. B. VINOD, SR. GP R5-6 BY SMT.AYSHA YOUSEFF, SC, KERALA VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCES UNIVERSITY** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28-012020, ALONG WITH WA.108/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 20-05-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WA No.108/2019 & conn.cases -:18:- ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH** **WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2020 / 30TH VAISAKHA, 1942 WA.No.264 OF 2019** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.12.2018 IN WP(C) 19274/2014(H) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA** ## **APPELLANT/PETITIONER:** **DR.K.M.DILEEP KUMAR. ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF VETERINARY SURGERY AND RADIOLOGY, COLLEGE OF VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCE, MANNUTHY, RESIDING AT KOAKKADAN HOUSE, VARAKKARA P.O, TRISSUR-25.** **BY ADVS. SRI.P.V.JAYACHANDRAN SRI.NIDHI BALACHANDRAN SMT.G.N.DEEPA** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.** **2 THE REGISTRAR, KERALA VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCE UNIVERSITY, POOKODE, LAKIDI P.O, WYNAD-673576.** WA No.108/2019 & conn.cases -:19:- **3 DR. RAMYA V, D/O. MUKUNDAN, ANENDA VALAPPIL HOUSE, PALAYAD P.O, THALASSERY, KANNUR-670611.** **R1 BY SRI. B. VINOD, SR. GP R2 BY SMT.AYSHA YOUSEFF, SC, KERALA VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCES UNIVERSITY R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN SRI.S. RAMESH** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28-012020, ALONG WITH WA.108/2019, & CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 20-05-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WA No.108/2019 & conn.cases -:20:- ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH** **WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2020 / 30TH VAISAKHA, 1942** ## **WA.No.295 OF 2019** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.12.2018 IN WP(C) 15112/2014(L) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA** ## **APPELLANT/NOT PARTY TO THE WRIT PETITION:** **DR.JOE JOSEPH ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, COLLEGE OF VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCES, MANNUTHY, THRISSUR.** **BY ADVS. SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN SRI.DEEPU LAL MOHAN** ## **RESPONDENTS/WRIT PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 5:** **1 DR.DIVYA P.D ASSISTANT PROFESSOR (ON CONTRACT), DEPARTMENT OF VETERINARY BIOCHEMISTRY COLLEGE OF VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCENICS, MANNUTHY.680651** **2 DR. SREELAKSHMI.C.M, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR (ON CONTRACT), DEPARTMENT OF VETERINARY ANIMAL HUSBANDRY EXTENSION COLLEGE OF VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCENICS, MANNUTHY. 680651** WA No.108/2019 & conn.cases -:21:- - **3 DR. RATHEESH.R.L., GANGOTHRI, KUNNANNOOR, CHADNRA NAGAR P.O., PALAKKAD.680007** - **4 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SPECIAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LAW REGISTRATION (I) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.** - **5 KERALA VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCES UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, POOKODE, WAYANADN 673 121.** - **6 THE MANAGEMENT COUNCIL, KERALA VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCES UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE CHANCELLOR, POOKODE, WAYANAD 673 121.** - **7 SMT. SALINI GOPINATH, AGED 38 YEARS W/O. S.R. SHYAM SURAJ, RRESIDING AT F-II, INDUS GARDENS, VIYYOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT.680010** - **8 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, AGRICULTURE (AHF) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.** **R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN R4, R8 BY SRI. B. VINOD SR.GP R5-6 BY ADV. AYSHA YOUSUFF,STANDING COUNSEL(B/O)** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28-012020, ALONG WITH WA.108/2019 & CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 20-05-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WA No.108/2019 & conn.cases -:22:- ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH** **WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2020 / 30TH VAISAKHA, 1942** ## **WA.No.1110 OF 2019** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.12.2018 IN WP(C) 14174/2015(V) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA** ## **APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO.1:** ## **REGISTRAR** **KERALA VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCE UNIVERSITY LAKKIDI P.O., POOKKODE, WAYANAD-673 576.** **BY ADV. SMT.AYSHA YOUSEFF** ## **RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER/RESPONDENTS 2 TO 5:** - **1 DR.ANUMOL JOSEPH AGED 30 YEARS W/O. SIBY PHILIP, MUKKATTU HOUSE, MANDALAM P.O., NADUVIL VIA, KANNUR-670 582.** - **2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** - **3 DR.S.SULFICAR** - **ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF VETERINARY EPIDEMIOLOGY AND PREVENTIVE MEDICINE, COLLEGE OF VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCES, MANNUTHY-680 325.** WA No.108/2019 & conn.cases -:23:- **4 DR.SMITHA J.P. ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF VETERINARY EPIDEMIOLOGY AND PREVENTIVE MEDICINE, COLLEGE OF VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCES, POOKODE-680 505.** **5 DR.JUSTIN DAVIS K ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF VETERINARY EPIDEMIOLOGY AND PREVENTIVE MEDICINE, COLLEGE OF VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCES, MANNUTHY-680 325.** **R1 BY ADV. ISSAC KURUVILA ILLICKAL(BY ORDER) R2 BY SRI. B. VINOD, SR. GP R4 BY ADV. SRI.O.V.RADHAKRISHNAN (SR.) R4 BY ADV. SMT.K.RADHAMANI AMMA R4 BY ADV. SRI.P.KRISHNANKUTTY NAIR (KOLLAMALA)** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28-012020, ALONG WITH WA.108/2019 & CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 20-05-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WA No.108/2019 & conn.cases -:24:- ## **J U D G M E N T** ## **[ WA Nos.108, 116, 155, 169, 193, 241,** ## **244, 264, 295 & 1110/2019 ]** Dated this the 20[th] day of May, 2020 ## _**Shaffique, J.**_ These appeals arise out of issues relating to appointment of Assistant Professors in the Kerala Veterinary and Animal Sciences University (for short “the University”) pursuant to a notification dated 12/6/2014. A batch of writ petitions were disposed of by common judgment dated 12/12/2018. 2. One of the issues was whether the provisions of KS & SSR regarding relaxation of age to 'Other Backward Classes' (for short 'OBC') would apply to the selection and appointment made as per notification dated 12/6/2014. As per the notification, the applications were to be submitted by persons who should not have attained the age of 40 (forty) as on the last date of submission of the application, that is on 31/7/2014. However, candidates from SC/ST category were given age relaxation up to 5 years in the upper age limit. The notification further provides WA No.108/2019 & conn.cases -:25:- that the mode of selection applicable to reservation, relaxation of age and all other matters relating to the appointment to the said post shall be governed by the provisions contained in the Kerala Veterinary and Animal Sciences University Act, 2010 (for short 'KVASU Act'), S.58 and Statute and orders issued by the Government from time to time. The petitioners in WP(C) Nos. 19274/2014, 19275/2014, 30862/2014 and 565/2015 had crossed the age of 40. But their contention is that they belong to 'OBC' and entitled for age relaxation under Rule 10(c) of Part II of KS& SSR. The learned Single Judge after evaluating the respective contentions held that the said claim is totally unsustainable in so far as Rule 10(c) of Part II KS & SSR has not been made applicable to the University either under the KVASU Act or the First Statutes. 3. Second issue related to the challenge made by petitioners in WP(C) No. 15112/2014, regarding the vires of Note to Statute 149 of the Veterinary and Animal Sciences University First Statutes, 2014, (hereinafter referred as the First Statutes) on the allegation that the same is inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. The said Note reads as under:- WA No.108/2019 & conn.cases -:26:- “ _**Note** : Notwithstanding anything contained in Statutes 140-149, provided that deputation for academic duties to the University from ICAR or officers on Government of India or Government of Kerala Departments having permanent position and lien there and serving on vacant University posts as on 31-12-2013 with prescribed UGC Qualifications, NET and minimum two years of deputation service in the University may be given age relaxation equivalent to the post qualified service in parent organization and be regularized in the University service. Vice-Chancellor shall be competent to notify 'Adjunct Faculty' or 'Honorary Faculty' of comparable rank. 'Adjunct Faculty' or 'Honorary Faculty' such as Honorary Professor shall be supernumerary and appointed on honorarium basis for performing specific functions and duties for particular period and shall not be permanent employees. They shall, however, perform all duties as prescribed for 'Teachers' except evaluation of papers/administrative responsibilities.”_ The grievance of the petitioners was that though they were qualified to be considered for the post of Assistant Professor in terms of the notification published by the University on 12/6/2014, instead of following the qualification prescribed under the notification especially regarding the prescription of maximum age limit, by virtue of the Note to Statute 149, relaxation was granted to persons who were on deputation from ICAR or WA No.108/2019 & conn.cases -:27:- Government of India or Government of Kerala Departments having permanent position and lien there and serving in the vacant University posts as on 31/12/2013. It was therefore contended that their absorption in the service of University relaxing the age criteria as prescribed in the Note was bad in law, in so far as the Note is ultra vires the KVASU Act. The contesting respondents including the University contended that the Note was intra vires the KVASU Act. The learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment declared that the Note to Statute 149 is _ultra vires_ the provisions of the KVASU Act to the extent it relates to regularization and age relaxation, which is beyond the rule making power under Section 49 and also inconsistent with the provisions of Section 57 of the KVASU Act, read with Statutes 132 and 138 of the First Statute. It was therefore held that those petitioners who claimed age relaxation as well as regularization are not entitled for either regularization or age relaxation. 4. The third issue that had come up for consideration was the claim of the petitioner in WP(C) No.19908/2014, that he should also be considered for being selected, taking into account the Public Services (Date for Determination of Age for Eligibility WA No.108/2019 & conn.cases -:28:- for Appointment) Rules, 1977. As per the provisions of the above Rules, when applications are invited for appointment to public offices, age has to be computed with reference to the first day of January of the particular year. Learned Single Judge held that even though other Universities and State have treated 1[st] day of January of the year in which the applications are called for based on Rule 2 of the 1977 Rules, in so far as the University had not adopted the said rules and in the notification it was specifically mentioned that the upper age limit will be as on a particular date, the petitioner cannot claim any such benefit. 5. The petitioners in WP(C) No.15580/2014 are persons who had claimed relaxation based on Note to Statute 149 of the First Statutes. Similar claims were made by the petitioners in WP(C) Nos.19274/14, 19275/14, 30862/14 and 565/2015 as well. 6. The petitioners in WP(C) Nos. 14174/2015, 9353/2015 and 19030/2015 challenge the appointment of various private respondents after giving relaxation in terms of Rule 10(c) of Part II KS & SSR and Note to Statute 149 of the First Statutes. According to them, they were all qualified to be considered and appointed to the post, whereas after giving age relaxation, the University WA No.108/2019 & conn.cases -:29:- had appointed persons who were not eligible to be appointed. ## 7. The learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment issued the following directions:- _“44. In the result:_ _a) W.P(c).No.15112/2014 is allowed._ _(b) W.P(C).Nos. 15580/2014, 19908/2014, 19274/2014, 19275/2014, 30862/2014 and 565/2015 are dismissed._ _(c) (i) W.P(C).No.14174/2015 is disposed of. It is declared that the appointment of respondents 3 and 4 are illegal;_ _(ii) there shall be a direction to the University to refer the matter regarding the relevancy of qualification of the 5[th] respondent for appointment in the discipline of Veterinary Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, to a committee of 3 academic experts in the field from outside the University including one from ICAR and thereafter take a decision on the issue on the basis of their opinion, after furnishing a copy of the opinion so received to the petitioner and the 5[th] respondent and affording an opportunity of hearing to both the parties. This shall be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The appointment of the 5th respondent would be subject to the decision to be taken as directed. ._ _(d) W.P(c).No.9353/2015 is allowed. The University shall remove the name of the unqualified hand from the rank list and appoint the next candidate in his/her place, as per the rank list, against the relevant turn within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment._ WA No.108/2019 & conn.cases -:30:- _(e) W.P(C).No.19030/2015 is allowed. The University shall remove the name of the 2[nd] respondent from the rank list and remove him from service and appoint the next candidate in his/her place, as per the rank list, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, against the relevant turn and to appoint such candidate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment._ _(f) The University shall remove the candidates found ineligible in this judgment, from the rank list for the respective discipline and from the post and shall appoint the next candidate in the rank list in his/her place in accordance with the open/reservation turn within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.”_ 8. Persons who are aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment has preferred separate appeals. We heard the learned counsel appearing on either side. The first question mooted and to be answered in these appeals is with reference to the applicability of Rule 10(c) of Part II KS & SSR to the appointments made pursuant to notification dated 12/6/2014. The learned Senior counsel Sri.O.V.Radhakrishnan leading the arguments primarily placed reliance on the statutory provisions, the 9 Bench judgment of the Apex Court in _**Indra Sawhney and Others v. Union of India and Others**_ (1992 Supp (3) SCC 217) and the judgment in WA No.108/2019 & conn.cases -:31:- _**Jitendra Kumar Singh and another v. State of U.P**_ [(2010) 3 SCC 119]. 9. Let us now have a brief reference to the statutory provisions. S.57(5) of the KVASU Act, deals with the procedure for selection of teachers which reads as under:- ## _“_ _**57. Appointment of teachers, officers and staff-**_ ## _xxxxx_ _(5) The procedure for selection of officers, teachers and other employees of the University shall unless otherwise provided for in this Act be such as may be prescribed.”_ S.58 relates to reservation of appointments, which reads as under:- _“_ _**58. Reservation of Appointments** : The rules for the reservation of appointments to posts under the Government in favour of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes shall apply in the case of appointment of the teachers and non-teaching staff and other employees of the University.”_ It is based on S.58 that an argument has been developed by the counsel for appellants, that when the Statute itself prescribes that the rules for the reservation of appointments to posts under the Government in favour of SC/ST and OBC shall apply in the case of appointment of teachers and non-teaching staff and other employees of the University, the same includes age relaxation as WA No.108/2019 & conn.cases -:32:- ## well. Rule 10(c) of Part II KS & SSR reads as under:- ## _“_ _**10. Qualifications** -xxx_ _(c) The upper age limit prescribed in the Special Rules shall, unless otherwise stated, be raised by 5 years in the case of a candidate belonging to any of the Scheduled Castes or adult members of such castes and their children when such adult members are converted to other religions, or Scheduled Tribes and by 3 years in the case of a candidate belonging to any of the Other Backward Classes.”_ 10. Apparently, Rule 10(c) prescribes an age relaxation of 5 years in the case of a candidate belonging to SC/ST and by 3 years in the case of a candidate belonging to any of the “Other Backward Classes”. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellants is that when S.58 of the Act refers to “rules for the reservation of appointments to posts”, it includes age relaxation also for which reference has been made to _**Indra Sawhney's case**_ (supra). In fact, Rule 10 of Part II KS & SSR deals with qualification, and age relaxation is one among the qualification criteria. Providing reservation as contemplated under Section 58 is a constitutional mandate and reservation to various services is dealt with under Rule 14 of Part II KS & SSR. Rule 14 reads as under:- WA No.108/2019 & conn.cases -:33:- _“_ _**14. Reservation of appointments** .- Where the Special Rules lay down that the principle of reservation of appointments shall apply to any service, class or category, or where in the case of any service, class or category for which no Special Rules have been issued, the Government have by notification in the Gazette declared that the principle of reservation of appointments shall apply to such service, class or category, appointments by direct recruitment to such service, class or category shall be made on the following basis.xxx”_ Rule 14(c) further provides that the appointments under the Rule shall be made in the order of rotation specified therein in every cycle of 20 vacancies. Therefore, when the State Legislature had clearly indicated in S.58 that the “rules for the reservation of appointments to posts under the Government”, necessarily it incorporates only Rule 14 to the KVASU Act and not Rule 10(c) of KS & SSR. When there is clarity in the aforesaid statutory position, the contention that Rule 10(c) of Part II KS& SSR is to be incorporated to S.58 of the Act cannot be sustained. 11. In the notice inviting applications, it was further indicated that the mode of selection applicable to reservation, relaxation of age and all other matters relating to the appointment to the post shall be governed by the provisions -:34:- WA No.108/2019 & conn.cases contained in the KVASU Act, S.58 and statute and orders issued by the Government from time to time. Statute 132(4) of the First Statutes reads thus:- _“132. Appointment of Teachers. xxx_ _(4) In making appointments to posts in any class or category in each Department under the University, subject to the provisions contained in section 58 of the Act, the University shall observe the provisions of clauses (a), (b) and (c) of rule 14 and rules 15, 16 and 17 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958, as amended from time to time.”_ Statute 139 indicates as under:- _“139. Applicability of certain Rules to University TeachersSubject to the provisions of the Act and the Statutes issued thereunder the Kerala Service Rules, the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules and the Kerala Government Servant's Conduct Rules for the time being in force, as amended from time to time, shall mutatis mutandis apply to the teachers of the University, with such modifications as the context may require and the expression "Government" in those rules shall be construed as a reference to the "University"._ Statute 140 (iii) prescribes the limitation with reference to age, ## which reads as under:- ## _“140. Qualifications- xxxx_ _(iii) NET/SLET/SET shall also not be required for such Masters Programmes in disciplines for which NET/SLET/SET_ WA No.108/2019 & conn.cases ## -:35:- _is not conducted. No candidate shall be eligible for the post, if he/she attains the age of 40 years on the last date of application for the post. For candidates from SC/ST' category, a relaxation of five years shall be given in the upper age limit. xxxxx”_ 12. In Statute 132, though reference is made to certain provisions of KS & SSR, Rule 10(c) is specifically excluded. Further in Statute 140 (iii) relaxation in age limit is granted only to SC/ST category and not OBC. It is therefore all the more clear that KVASU Act and the First Statutes did not contemplate any age relaxation for OBC candidates. 13. It was argued on behalf of the appellants that in _**Indra Sawhney's case**_ (supra), the Apex Court had examined the meaning and content of expression 'reservation' and it is held that “ _The question then arises whether clause (4) of Article 16 is exhaustive of the topic of reservations in favour of backward classes. Before we answer this question it is well to examine the meaning and content of the expression “reservation”. Its meaning has to be ascertained having regard to the context in which it occurs. The relevant words are “any provision for the reservation of appointments or posts”. The question is whether the said words contemplate only_ WA No.108/2019 & conn.cases -:36:- _one form of provision namely reservation simplicitor, or do they take in other forms of special provisions like preferences, concessions and exemptions. In our opinion, reservation is the highest form of special provision, while preference, concession and exemption are lesser forms. The constitutional scheme and context of Article 16(4) induces us to take the view that larger concept of reservations takes within its sweep all supplemental and ancillary provisions as also lesser types of special provisions like exemptions, concessions and relaxations, consistent no doubt with the requirement of maintenance of efficiency of administration — the admonition of Article 335.”_ In _**Jitendra Kumar Singh**_ (supra), learned counsel relied on paragraphs 49 and 75 which reads as under:- _**“49.** It is permissible for the State in view of Articles 14, 15, 16 and 38 of the Constitution of India to make suitable provisions in law to eradicate the disadvantages of candidates belonging to socially and educationally backward classes. Reservations are a mode to achieve the equality of opportunity guaranteed under Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India. Concessions and relaxations in fee or age provided to the reserved category candidates to enable them to compete and seek benefit of reservation, is merely an aid to reservation. The concessions and relaxations place the candidates on a par with general category candidates. It is only_ WA No.108/2019 & conn.cases -:37:- _thereafter the merit of the candidates is to be determined without any further concessions in favour of the reserved category candidates.”_ _**“75.** In our opinion, the relaxation in age does not in any manner upset the “level playing field”. It is not possible to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that relaxation in age or the concession in fee would in any manner be infringement of Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India. These concessions are provisions pertaining to the eligibility of a candidate to appear in the competitive examination. At the time when the concessions are availed, the open competition has not commenced. It commences when all the candidates who fulfil the eligibility conditions, namely, qualifications, age, preliminary written test and physical test are permitted to sit in the main written examination. With age relaxation and the fee concession, the reserved candidates are merely brought within the zone of consideration, so that they can participate in the open competition on merit. Once the candidate participates in the written examination, it is immaterial as to which category, the candidate belongs. All the candidates to be declared eligible had participated in the preliminary test as also in the physical test. It is only thereafter that successful candidates have been permitted to participate in the open competition.”_ In _**Indra Sawhney**_ (supra) and in _**Jitendra Kumar Singh**_ (supra) the Apex Court was considering the scope of the word reservation as appearing in Article 16 of the Constitution, and to WA No.108/2019 & conn.cases -:38:- what extent reservation can be offered to candidates belonging to the lower strata of the society and backward communities. Nevertheless, when Special Rules are prescribed for appointment, the Court has to consider whether the rules provide any such reservation or not. In the cases on hand, what is to be ascertained is whether the provisions of KS & SSR are made specifically applicable to appointment of Assistant Professors in the University. As already stated, when certain provisions of KS & SSR are made applicable, it has to be understood that some other provisions were not made applicable. Further the statute itself [Statute 132(4)] clearly indicates that only certain provisions of KS & SSR applies. Statute 139 starts with the words 'subject to the provisions of the Act and the Statutes' which apparently means that the provisions of KSR and KS & SSR will be deemed to be made applicable subject to the provisions of the Act. When the Act and Statute do not provide for any specific relaxation of age for OBC and Rule 10(c) of KS & SSR is not specifically made applicable, we do not think that the learned Single Judge had committed any error in rejecting the said plea. 14. It is argued on behalf of the appellants that there is WA No.108/2019 & conn.cases -:39:- non joinder of necessary parties. Reference has been made to the judgments of the Apex Court in _**Udit Narain Singh v. Board of Revenue**_ (AIR 1963 SC 786), _**Prabodh Verma v. State of U.P**_ (AIR 1985 SC 167), _**Shiv Kumar Tiwari v. Jagat Narain Rai and Others**_ [(2001) 10 SCC 11], _**Khetrabasi Biswal v. Ajaya Kumar Baral**_ [(2004) 1 SCC 317] and _**Kulwant Singh v. Daya Ram**_ [(2015) 3 SCC 177]. The contention urged by the learned counsel is that the University and the Board of Management have not been impleaded as a party to the _lis_ . In all these cases, the Registrar of the University is a party. The petitioners apparently challenge the decision of the University in granting age relaxation to 'OBC' as well as other teachers who had been appointed on deputation. S.3(5) of the KVASU Act indicates that in all suits and other legal proceedings by or against University, the pleadings shall be signed and verified by the Registrar and all the processes in such suits and proceedings shall be issued to and served on the Registrar. S.3(5) reads as under; ## _“_ _**3. The University.** xxx_ _(5) In all suits and other legal proceedings by or against the University, the pleadings shall be signed and verified by the Registrar and all the processes in such suits and proceedings_ WA No.108/2019 & conn.cases -:40:- _shall be issued to and served on the Registrar.”_ In the light of S.3(5), the contention urged by the appellant is that the nomenclature in the petition ought to have been that the University is represented by the Registrar whereas in the writ petition, the Registrar is made the party and the nomenclature is as “ _The Registrar, Kerala Veterinary and Animal Science University, Pookode, Lakidi P.O. Wynad - 673576_ .” In the light of S.3(5) when the Registrar of the University has been specifically mentioned, there is absolutely nothing wrong in the Registrar being made a party to the _lis_ . On that ground, the writ petition cannot be thrown out. Further, as per S.14(3) of the KVASU Act, the Registrar shall be the Chief Administrative Officer, who has to work under the supervision, direction and control of the Vice Chancellor. Statute 18 provides that the Registrar shall have the powers as specified in Clauses (i) to (xviii) which _inter alia_ states that subject to the general direction and control of the Vice Chancellor, the Registrar shall be in charge of the administration of the University Office. The notification on the basis of which the selection had been conducted has been issued by the Registrar by the order of the Board of Management. Under WA No.108/2019 & conn.cases -:41:- Section 14(1), the very appointment of the Registrar of the University is by the Vice Chancellor with the approval of Board of Management. As per Statute 18(xvii), the Registrar can exercise any other power that may be delegated to him by the Vice Chancellor or Board of Management and the duties of the Registrar _inter alia_ includes to perform such other functions as may from time to time be prescribed by the Board of Management [Statute 19(viii)]. Therefore, when the Registrar is a party to the _lis_ , petitioners cannot have a grievance that proper parties had not been impleaded in the case. University is bound by the directions issued against the Registrar of the University and therefore, we do not think that the said argument has any force. 15. Yet another contention urged is that the order of appointment of the appellants had not been produced. When the very selection itself is under challenge on the ground that the appellants were not entitled for any age relaxation, absence of producing the order of appointment will not affect the case set up by the petitioner. Learned counsel placed reliance on judgment in _**Surinder Singh v. Central Government and Others**_ [(1986) 4 WA No.108/2019 & conn.cases -:42:- SCC 667] and _**A.X. Varghese v. Union of India**_ (1991( )1 KLT 635). The case dealt with in the aforesaid judgments totally stands on a different footing. In the cases on hand, what is under challenge is the selection procedure by which age relaxation had been given to some of the candidates and according to the petitioners, such grant of age relaxation is beyond the statutory provisions. Therefore, non production of the order of appointment will not affect the case of the petitioners in any manner as the very selection procedure by granting age relaxation is under challenge. 16. The other question which arises for consideration is the validity of the Note to Statute 149. Appointment by direct recruitment of Assistant Professor has been prescribed in terms of Statutes 140 to 142, Associate Professor from Statute 143 to 145 and Professor from 146 to 148. Statute 149 relates to appointment by career advancement scheme which apparently is a separate provision. The note has been added to encompass Statutes 140 to 149, and is in the form of a non obstante clause which provides that those officers on deputation for academic duties to the University from ICAR or Government of India or WA No.108/2019 & conn.cases -:43:- Government of Kerala Departments having permanent position and lien in their parent departments and serving on vacant University posts as on 31/12/2013, with prescribed qualifications, a minimum 2 years of deputation service in the University may be given age relaxation equivalent to the post qualified service in parent organization and be regularized in the University service. The Note has therefore carved out an exception, to those who were working in the University for 2 years as on 31/12/2013. They could be regularized in the University service by giving age relaxation equivalent to the post qualified service in parent organization. Learned Single Judge had struck down the Note inter alia observing that there is no provision in the Statute which enables the Government to enact the First Statutes under its rule making power as contemplated under Section 49. Section 49 enables the Management Council with the power to make Statutes. The First Statutes have been enacted by the Government and not by the Management Council. The power of the Government to make rules is specified under Section 74 which reads as under:- _“_ _**74. Powers of Government to make Rules.** —(1) The_ WA No.108/2019 & conn.cases -:44:- _Government may, by notification in the Gazette, make rules, not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, for the purpose of exercising the powers and discharging the duties conferred or imposed on the Government by this Act._ _(2) Every rule made under this section shall be laid, as soon as may be after it is made, before the Legislative Assembly while it is in session for a total period of fourteen days which may be comprised in one session or in two successive sessions, and if, before the expiry of the session in which it is so laid or the session immediately following, the Legislative Assembly makes any modification in the rule or decides that the rule should not be made, the rules shall thereafter have effect only in such modified form or, be of no effect, as the case may be, so however that any such modification or annulment shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under that rule.”_ Government can make rules which is not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. The Note under Rule 149 apparently had been framed by the Government granting age relaxation. In fact, none of the provisions under Statutes 140 to 149 mentions anything about the minimum age of the candidates. Therefore, the non obstante clause in Note to Statute 149 has no application to Statutes 140 to 149. The note deals with regularisation of a person who was appointed on deputation, provided they are WA No.108/2019 & conn.cases -:45:- qualified to be appointed to the post of teachers. There is no provision in the KVASU Act, which permits age relaxation to Teachers who are on deputation. Any such prescription would be in violation of Statute 140(iii) of the First Statutes. The rule making power of the Government either under section 74 or section 49 contemplate any such power to give age relaxation to Teachers on deputation. Hence the learned single Judge has rightly declared Note to Statute 149 as ulra vires the KVASU Act. 17. Some of the appellants had placed reliance upon S.3 of the Kerala Public Services Act, 1968 and it is contended that by virtue of S.3, the KS & SSR shall be deemed to have been made under the Act and have statutory force and effect. There is no basis for the aforesaid argument. The selection in respect of the aforesaid post was conducted based on the provisions of the KVASU Act and the First Statutes. Unless there is a specific provision which enables the grant of age relaxation, it is trite that no such benefit can be extended. When the notification itself indicates that the age limit shall be with reference to a particular date, necessarily candidates who were within the said age limit alone would apply for the said post. None challenged the WA No.108/2019 & conn.cases -:46:- notification or prescription of age limit at the relevant time. Hence there is justification on the part of the learned single Judge to have rejected such a plea. In the result, we don't find any infirmity in the judgment of the learned single Judge warranting interference. Appeals are hence dismissed. **Sd/-** **A.M.SHAFFIQUE JUDGE Sd/MARY JOSEPH** Rp True Copy **JUDGE** PS to Judge WA No.108/2019 & conn.cases -:47:- ## **APPENDIX OF WA 116/2019** **APPELLANT'S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE A1:** **A TRUE COPY OF GOVERNMENT ORDER NO.G.O. (MS) NO.243/2014/H.EDN DATED 5.6.2014.** **ANNEXURE A2:** **A TRUE COPY OF CORRIGENDUM NO.AD.AII(1)/5038/2017/ADMN(4) DATED 1.6.2018 ISSUED BY THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY.** WA No.108/2019 & conn.cases -:48:- ## **APPENDIX OF WA 244/2019** ## **APPELLANT'S EXHIBITS:** ## **ANNEXURE I** **TRUE COPY OF G.O.(P) NO.108/14/AD, DATED 19.05.2014, AS PUBLISHED IN KERALA GAZETTE EXTRAORDINARY DATED 20.05.2014 ALONG WITH THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE FIRST STATUTES OF THE KERALA VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCES UNIVERSITY STATUTES, 2014.**