High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2016-08-23Writ petition disposed as above.

W.P.(C) No. 14596 of 2014 (Y) - Suji V v University of Kerala and others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 14596 of 2014 (Y)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar
Judgment Date: 2016-08-23
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition dismissed. The court held that the engagements were contract-based with 89-day terms and that renewal beyond those terms cannot be compelled. It relied on State of Maharashtra and Others v. Anita and Another Etc. to support estoppel against challenging contractual terms. However, it directed the first respondent to compute and pay arrears due for the period worked under the interim order within six weeks.
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed as above.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Suji V

Respondents

University of Kerala represented by its Registrar, Thiruvananthapuram
Director of Physical Education University of Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram
P. Raghavan Joint Registrar (Administration), University of Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• S.P. Aravindakshan Pillay
• S.A. Anand
• L. Ammu Pillai
• K.A. Balan
• Peter Jose Christo
• N. Santha

Counsels for Respondents

• George Poonthottam
• Bechu Kurian Thomas
• Paul Jacob

Case Synopsis & Summary

Petitioner Suji V was employed as a Data Entry Operator by the University of Kerala on casual contracts, with 89-day spellwork and a one-day break between spells, from 07.06.2010 to 31.05.2014. She alleges discrimination in not being re-engaged in 2014 while others in similar posts were contracted again, and contends that interim Court directions directing continued engagement on the same terms were not honoured in her case. She claims that during the period she worked under the Court’s interim order, she did not receive certain pay elements, including revised wages and festival allowances, and seeks arrears along with re-engagement on the same terms. She also asserts mala fides against the 3rd respondent as a reason for denial of engagement. The University counters that the engagement was purely temporary and contractual, with each spell for 89 days, and that there was no right to continuation beyond the contract; they rely on contractual terms (EXT.P1–EXT.P15) to argue there was no obligation to renew. The court, after hearing, finds that the initial and subsequent engagements were contract-based and bounded by 89-day terms. It cites State of Maharashtra and Others v. Anita and Another Etc. [JT 2016 (7) SC 452] to support the proposition that a contract employee cannot challenge its terms. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed, but the interim order directs computation of arrears for the period worked under that order and payment within six weeks.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Estoppel
Mala fides

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner argues that she was engaged in 89-day spells with a one-day break since 2010 till 2014, creating an impression of continuity. In 2014 she was not renewed whereas others in similar posts were contracted anew. She asserts the interim Court direction to continue on the same terms was not honoured and seeks re-engagement and payment of arrears including wages, revised wages, and festival allowances for the interim period. She also claims mala fides against the 3rd respondent.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend the engagement was strictly temporary and contractual, with spells of 89 days and no automatic right to renewal. They rely on the employment contracts (EXT.P1–EXT.P15) and join reports to show the limited nature of each spell. They deny mala fides and assert that the petition cannot be granted as it would override contractual terms and administrative discretion. They emphasize that the interim directions did not create an unconditional right to renewal or arrears beyond actual work under the contract.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
State of Maharashtra and Others v. Anita and Another Etc.	JT 2016 (7) SC 452	Positive	Cited as authority that a contract employee cannot challenge the terms of a contract; supports dismissal of the petition seeking renewal.

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 W.P.(C) No. 14596 of 2014 (Y) - Suji V v University of Kerala and others 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 A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR** **TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST 2016/1ST BHADRA, 1938** **WP(C).No. 14596 of 2014 (Y) ----------------------------** **PETITIONER(S): -------------** **SUJI V** **DATA ENTRY OPERATOR, DEPARTMENT OF PHYSICAL EDUCATION, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, G.V.RAJA PAVILION PMG, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 038.** **BY ADVS.SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY SRI.S.A.ANAND SMT.L.AMMU PILLAI SRI.K.A.BALAN SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO SMT.N.SANTHA** **RESPONDENT(S):** **--------------** **1. UNIVERSITY OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN-695 034.** **2. DIRECTOR OF PHYSICAL EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, G.V.RAJA PAVILION, PMG THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 038** **3. P. RAGHAVAN JOINT REGISTRAR (ADMINISTRATION), UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 034.** **R1,R2,R3 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM,SC,KERALA UTY. R1,R 2 & 3 BY ADV. SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, SC,UNIVERSITY OF KERALA R1 BY ADV. SRI.PAUL JACOB, SC, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No. 14596 of 2014 (Y) ----------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS -----------------------** **EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO NO.AD.AI.3.10581/06 DATED 27-10-2006 OF THE UNIVERSITY.** **EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE JOINING REPORT DATED 3-5-2007 OF THE PETITIONER** **EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE NOTE DATED 7-6-2010 OF THE UNIVERSITY** **EXT.P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.AD.AI.2/660/11 DATED 13-9-2011 OF THE UNIVERSITY** **EXT.P5 - TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER NO.AD.AI.3.7653/12/7.7 DATED 10-7-12** **EXT.P6 - TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.DPE/ADMN/2012-13 DATED 12-7-2012 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT** **EXT.P7 - TRUE COPY OF THE JOINTING REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ON 4-3-2014** **EXT.P8 - TRUE COPY OF THE WORK AND CONDUCT CERTIFICATE DATED 31-5-2014 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT** **EXT.P9 - TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE NOTE AND JOINING REPORT DATED 3-6-2014 OF SMT.RAJEENA B.** **EXT.P10 - TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.AD DI/DPE/2014 DATED 7-2-2014 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER TO THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF PHYSICAL EDUCATION** **EXT.P11 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.AD.DI/DPE/STADIUM/2009 DATED 3-10-2009** **EXT.P12 - TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.DPE/ADMN/2013-14 DATED 11-2-2014 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT** **EXT.P13 - TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER NO.AD.AI.3.1662/2.8 DATED 13-2-2014 OF THE UNIVERSITY** **EXT.P14 - TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER NO.AD.AI.3.1662/2.11 DATED 17-2-2014** **EXT.P15 - TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE ATTENDANCE REGISTER OF THE PHYSICAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT OF THE UNIVERSITY FOR THE MONTH OF JUNE 2014.** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS** **----------------------EXT.R1(a) - TRUE COPY OF THE FORMAT OF THE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT.** **EXT.R1(b) - TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.50/DPE/ADMN/2014-15 DATED 16.06.2014 EXT.R1(c) - TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 27.06.2014. EXT.R1(d) - TRUE COPY OF THE SUBMISSION DATED 23.06.2014.** **-2-** **WP(C).No. 14596 of 2014 (Y)** **----------------------------** **EXT.R1(e) - TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 07.07.2014 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE DIRECTOR OF PHYSICAL EDUCATION** **EXT.R1(f) - TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 09.07.2014 SUBMITTED BY THE DIRECTOR OF PHYSICAL EDUCATION.** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A.TO JUDGE** **sm** ## **A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## **W.P.(C) No.14596 of 2014** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 23[rd] day of August, 2016 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner is a person, who was appointed as Data Entry Operator, on casual basis, in the respondent University with effect from 07.06.2010. In the writ petition, it is the case of the petitioner that, she was engaged for periods of 89 days at a time, and with an artificial break of one day between two successive spells. It is her case that, she has been working on the said basis from 07.06.2010 till 31.05.2014. Thereafter, although, in accordance with the normal practice, the petitioner submitted her joining report for the subsequent spell of 89 days, along with similar joining reports of others, similarly placed as the petitioner, who were also engaged as Data Entry Operators under the respondent University, the petitioner's case alone was picked out for hostile treatment and the services of the petitioner were not continued under the respondent University. It is the case of the petitioner that the discriminatory treatment meted out to her, more so when the conduct certificate obtained by her indicated that there was no compelling reason as to why she could not be re-engaged in a like manner as the others who were appointed on contract basis, cannot be justified. It is the W.P.(c).No.14596 of 2014 : 2 : further case of the petitioner that, when the writ petition came up for admission, by an order dated 10.06.2014, this Court had directed the respondents to continue to engage the petitioner on the same terms and conditions on which she was engaged earlier, until further orders, and the petitioner has been continuing on the strength of the said interim order, till date. It is stated that, during the period of continuance on the strength of the interim order, the petitioner has not been given the benefit of revised wages, festival allowances, and the regular pay for certain months, and the said arrears of pay and allowances ought to be paid to her for the period she worked, pursuant to the interim direction of this Court. Lastly, the petitioner would also contend that the refusal on the part of the respondents to re-engage the petitioner as Data Entry Operator is partly on account of the enmity that was harboured by the 3[rd] respondent against the petitioner and hence the denial of engagement is vitiated by mala fides. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3, wherein, it is stated that, the engagement of the petitioner was purely on temporary basis and for spells of 89 days at a time. Ext.R1 (a) is produced as the format of the employment contract that was entered into between the petitioner and the respondent University. It W.P.(c).No.14596 of 2014 : 3 : is pointed out that, as per the terms of the contract, the petitioner has no right to insist on a continuation of the employment beyond the period stipulated in the contract, and for the petitioner to contend to the contrary would be going against the express terms of the contract, which the petitioner cannot do. The counter affidavit also denies the allegations of mala fides which has been raised by the petitioner in the writ petition. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondent University. 4. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the bar, I find that, the initial engagement of the petitioner as a Data Entry Operator with effect from 07.06.2010 itself was based on a contract, which clearly specified that the petitioner would be engaged for a period of 89 days. The subsequent re-engagement of the petitioner has also been in terms of similar contracts, all of which clearly specified that the engagement is for a limited period of 89 days. That being the case, I am of the view that, the petitioner cannot insist on a continuation of the contract for a further period, since that would go against the express provisions of the contract, which are binding even on the W.P.(c).No.14596 of 2014 : 4 : petitioner. The judgment of the Supreme Court in **State of Maharashtra and Others v. Anita and Another Etc. [JT 2016 (7)** **SC 452]** is authority for the proposition that a person who obtained employment under a contract is estopped from challenging the terms of the contract. Under the said circumstances, I am of the view that the relief sought for in the writ petition, namely, of continuing the petitioner under the services of the respondent University, by renewing the contract in favour of the petitioner, cannot be granted. The writ petition therefore fails and is accordingly, dismissed. 5. Before parting with this case, I must take note of the specific contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that during the period when she was continuing in service, pursuant to the interim order of this Court, she has not been paid the salary and other allowances, including festival allowances and revised wages, that was payable to persons similarly situated as the petitioner, who were working under a contract with the respondent University. I note that in the interim order, on the strength of which the petitioner is continuing, it was clearly mentioned that the respondent University would retain her in service on the same terms and conditions on which she was engaged , until further orders. Accordingly, I direct the 1[st] respondent to compute the amounts that remain payable to the W.P.(c).No.14596 of 2014 : 5 : petitioner for the period she had worked, after expiry of the contract period till date, on the strength of the interim order passed by this Court, by including in the said computation, amounts remaining unpaid by way of remuneration, revised wages, festival allowances etc. and disburse the same to the petitioner, within an outer period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. To enable the 1[st] respondent to do so, I direct the petitioner to furnish a computation with regard to the differential amounts stated to be payable to the petitioner, by way of arrears of wages, revised wages, festival allowances and the like, within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed as above. Sd/- **A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE** sm/