WA.No. 2243 of 2017 IN WPC. 20405/2013

**IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH** **MONDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017 / 29TH KARTHIKA, 1939** **WA.No. 2243 of 2017 IN WPC. 20405/2013** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 20405/2013 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANT(S)/ADDL.4TH RESPONDENT IN WP(C)** **RAHUL V.** **S/O.BALAKRISHNAN, AGED 26 YEARS, VECHIYOTTU HOUSE, POOKKOTHUNDA, THALIPARAMBA, PIN-670141.** **BY ADV.SRI.GEORGE MECHERIL** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/WRIT APPELLANT & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 IN WP(C):** **1. CHANDRAN CHENNAPPOIL CHENNAPOIL HOUSE, NARIKKODE MALA P.O., THUVAKKUNNU VIA, KANNUR-670693.** **2. KANNUR UNIVERSITY REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, KANNUR UNIVERSITY, MANGATTUPARAMBA,KANNUR-670 693.** **3. REGISTRAR** **KANNUR UNIVERSITY, MANGATTUPARAMBA, KANNUR-670 693.** **4. SHYAMALATHA K.K.** **KARKKATAKATTIL, P.R.NAGAR, VELIYAMBRA, MATTANNUR, KANNUR-670 702.** **R BY SRI.P.K.IBRAHIM** **R BY SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ** **SMT ARUNA A R BY SRI.M.SASINDRAN, SC, KANNUR UNIVERSITY** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-11-2017, W.A.NO.2265/2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **kkj** ## **WA.No. 2243 of 2017 IN WPC. 20405/2013** ## **APPENDIX** ## **APPELLANTS' ANNEXURES** |**ANNEXURE I -**|**CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.09.2017 IN W.P.(C)**| |---|---| |**NO.20405/2013 OF THIS HONORABLE COURT**|| |**ANNEXRE II**<br>**-**|**TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 06.11.2012 OF THE PSC**| |**ANNEXURE III-**|**TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 04.01.2013.**| |**ANNEXURE IV -**|**TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 10.05.2013 OF THE STATE**| |**GOVERNMENT**|| |**ANNEXURE V:**|**TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 15.07.2013**| |**ANNEXURE VI:**|**TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE MINUTES OF THE SYNDICATE**| |**MEETING AGENDA**|**ITEM NO.212.507**| ## **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS** ## **NIL** ## **// TRUE COPY //** **PA TO JUDGE** **K.SURENDRA MOHAN & MARY JOSEPH, JJ. --------------------------------------------W.A. Nos.2243 & 2265 of 2017 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 20[th] day of November, 2017** ## **J U D G M E N T** ## Surendra Mohan, J. These appeals are filed against two separate judgments delivered by the learned Single Judge. As per the judgment dated 18.09.2017, W.P.(C) No.20405 of 2013 was disposed of noticing that the Syndicate of the Kerala University has already decided to give regular appointment to one Sri. Chandran, who was the writ petitioner therein. The appointment in these cases relates to the post of Peon. The appellant had got himself impleaded in the said Writ Petition claiming that he was interested in the controversy. He had also filed W.P.(C) No.31627 of 2017 challenging the decision of the Syndicate of the Kerala University dated 09.06.2017 deciding to reappoint Sri. Chandran as peon. The said Writ Petition has been dismissed by a separate judgment dated 20.10.2017. Since the dispute involved is one and the same and the parties are also same, both the ## -:2:- ## W.A. Nos.2243 & 2265 of 2017 appeals are considered and disposed of together. They have come up before us for admission. W.A.No.2243 of 2017 arises out of W.P.(C) No.20405 of 2013 and W.A.No.2265 of 2017 arises out of W.P.(C) No.31627 of 2017. W.A.No.2243 of 2017 is treated as the leading case. As already noticed above, the issue relates to the appointment to the post of Peon/Watchman in the Kerala University. Sri. Chandran who is the first respondent in W.A.No.2243 of 2017 was an applicant for selection and appointment to the post of peon. He had responded to a notification issued by the University on 02.08.1999. The selection appears to have dragged on for an abnormally long period of time. The rank list was published in the year 2009, after the lapse of a decade. The first respondent was ranked No.1 in the supplementary list of ST candidates. He was granted appointment as peon on the basis of his position in the rank list on 23.07.2011, as per exhibit P2 in a ## -:3:- ## W.A. Nos.2243 & 2265 of 2017 leave vacancy. However, he was terminated on 19.08.2011. Later on, on 24.04.2012, though he was sought to be reappointed in another leave vacancy, he did not join. The University appears to have issued a memo directing him to join duty. But, he did not respond to the said memo. 2. In view of the above, the University sought clarification from the Public Service Commission (PSC for short) through exhibit P7 dated 22.09.2012. The PSC appears to have responded by issuing Annx-II dated 06.11.2012 pointing out that, an omission to join duty would entail the treating of the vacancy as 'Not Joining Duty', to which, any other candidate could be appointed. The Government also appears to have endorsed the said decision. In the above state of affairs, the Syndicate of the University that met on 09.06.2017 decided by exhibit P8 to offer regular appointment to the first respondent as a Peon in the University. The first respondent had filed W.P. -:4:- ## W.A. Nos.2243 & 2265 of 2017 (C)No.20405 of 2013 alleging that the University was about to appoint another person one Smt Shyamalatha K.K. to the said post. It was during the pendency of the said Writ Petition, that the Syndicate had decided to appoint the first respondent to the post in question. 4. The first respondent had by filing I.A.No.14420 of 2017 produced exhibit P8 minutes of the Syndicate before the learned Single Judge. On noticing exhibit P8, the Writ Petition was disposed of directing the University to issue orders of reappointment to the first respondent without further delay. The appellant is aggrieved by the said judgment. 5. W.P.(C).No.31627 of 2017 was filed by the appellant challenging the decision of the Syndicate, exhibit P8, a copy of which is produced as exhibit P2 in the said Writ Petition. A further direction to the University to report all the existing vacancies of non-teaching staff to the PSC -:5:- ## W.A. Nos.2243 & 2265 of 2017 was also sought. The learned Single Judge found that the appellant was not a person interested in the controversy and therefore he was in no way aggrieved by the order that was under challenge. Accordingly, the Writ Petition has been dismissed declining relief to him. 6. According to Advocate George Mecheril who appears for the appellant in both the appeals, the first respondent had forfeited all his rights to claim appointment to the post of Peon on the strength of his ranking in the rank list that was prepared on the basis of the notification of the year 1999. He had been appointed in the leave vacancy initially, but had been terminated when the vacancy ceased to exist. Though a reappointment order was later on given to him, he did not choose to join duty. The clarification issued by the PSC was to effect that in such cases, the vacancy was to be treated as a not joining one to which any other person could be appointed. The ## -:6:- ## W.A. Nos.2243 & 2265 of 2017 counsel draws our attention to the decision of the Syndicate dated 26.07.2012 wherein it was resolved not to ratify the action of the Vice Chancellor in extending the validity of the rank list for another year. Accordingly, it was resolved not to make any appointment from the list even on ad hoc basis. According to the learned counsel, therefore all the authorities involved namely the PSC, the Government as well as the University had already decided not to make any appointment from the rank list of 2009 even before the first respondent had filed the Writ Petition before this Court. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the first respondent had no subsisting right to be considered for appointment. 7. It is further contended that Act 18 of 2015 had come into force on 29.09.2015. As per Section 3 thereof, appointments to the posts of non teaching staff are to be made on the basis of a select list prepared by the PSC. ## -:7:- ## W.A. Nos.2243 & 2265 of 2017 Therefore, it was not open to the University to make any appointment other than in accordance with the University Enactment after the date on which it came into force. The counsel places reliance on the judgment in **Renu v. District & Sessions Judge** [(2014) 15 SCC 731] particularly paragraph 7, to point out that as an unemployed person aspiring for a job, is a person interested in challenging the decision of the Syndicate. The judgment of another Division Bench of this Court dated 26.09.2014 in W.A.No.316 of 2012 and connected cases produced as Annexure-II in W.A.No.2265 of 2017, paragraph 14 in particular, is also relied upon to put forward a contention that persons like the appellant are interested in public appointments that are made by the authorities like University and the Government. 8. Heard. In both the appeals what is at issue is whether the appointment of the first respondent by the -:8:- ## W.A. Nos.2243 & 2265 of 2017 Syndicate and University is justified or not. We notice that, the Writ Petition was filed in the year 2013 whereas the Writ Petition from which W.A.No.2265 of 2017 is filed is of the year 2017 itself. The first respondent had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.20405 of 2013 alleging that Smt. Shyamalatha K.K. was likely to be appointed (the third respondent in the Writ Petition) overlooking his position in the rank list. While admitting the Writ Petition, this Court had by the interim order dated 05.09.2013 directed the University not to fill up the next arising vacancy in the post of Peon/Watchman without obtaining further orders from this Court. At the same time, it was made clear in the interim order that in case it was necessary to fill up such vacancy due to emergent reasons, the Writ Petitioner (the first respondent herein) could be appointed temporarily, subject to further orders in the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition was thereafter pending. It was during the ## -:9:- ## W.A. Nos.2243 & 2265 of 2017 pendency of the Writ Petition that the Syndicate had decided on 09.06.2017 to offer regular appointment to the first respondent as a Peon. Since the Syndicate itself had decided to appoint the first respondent in the service of the University, the grievance projected in the Writ Petition, stood redressed. The learned Single Judge has only accepted the said decision and has directed the University to appoint the first respondent in accordance with the decision of the Syndicate. We find no infirmity in the said judgment warranting an interference in appeal. 9. The other question that arises is whether the rejection of the challenge against the decision of the Syndicate by the judgment in W.P.(C) No.31627 of 2017 is sustainable or not. We have gone through the Writ Petition filed by the appellant. What is stated is only that, he is a permanent resident of the Pokkothunada in Thaliparamba and an unemployed person. Absolutely no details regarding ## -:10:- ## W.A. Nos.2243 & 2265 of 2017 his personal qualification or entitlement to claim appointment to the service of the University are disclosed in the Writ Petition. We remind ourselves of the fact that there are innumerable persons who are unemployed in the State as well as in our country who may aspire for a proper job. That would not clothe them with the entitlement to challenge each and every decision taken by the Government or other statutory authorities. The appellant does not disclose his interest in the subject matter of controversy in these cases. He has also not disclosed how he is aggrieved by the decision of the Syndicate. Therefore, we are not satisfied that he is in anyway prejudiced by the decision taken by the Syndicate. We further notice that the first respondent is a person who was selected pursuant to a notification issued by the University in the year 1999. He was included in the rank list that was prepared in the year 2009. He was appointed to a leave vacancy in the year ## -:11:- W.A. Nos.2243 & 2265 of 2017 2011. He was terminated for the reason that the vacancy had ceased to exist. He had been waiting in the expectation that he would be appointed on the basis of his ranking at some point of time in the future. He had also filed a Writ Petition apprehending that some other person would be appointed overlooking his claim. The said Writ Petition was pending in this Court from the year 2013. It was in such a situation that the Syndicate had decided to appoint him by exhibit P8 decision. Though it is true that the Syndicate had a taken decision earlier not to make any appointment from the rank list of 2009, nothing prevented the Syndicate from taking exhibit P8 decision to appoint the first respondent as done in these cases. We therefore do not find any infirmity in exhibit P8, as contended by the appellant. A larger contention that has been put forward is that since the Act 18 of 2015 had come into force on 29.09.2015, it was not open to the University to have -:12:- ## W.A. Nos.2243 & 2265 of 2017 appointed the first respondent after the said date. As already noticed above, the first respondent was selected and ranked pursuant to a notification issued in the year 1999. His claim for reappointment had been pending before this Court in the Writ Petition filed by him in the year 2013. Therefore, his appointment is not a fresh appointment after the date of coming into force of Act 18 of 2015 as sought to be made out. In view of the above, we are not satisfied that Act 18 of 2015 has any impact on the dispute in these cases. For the foregoing reasons, these Writ Appeals fail and are accordingly dismissed. ## Sd/- **K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE** Sd/- **MARY JOSEPH JUDGE** kkj