High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2014-12-04Writ petition disposed with a direction to cons...

W.P.(C) No. 28327 of 2014 (M)

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 28327 of 2014 (M)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Dama Seshadri Naidu
Judgment Date: 2014-12-04
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition disposed with a direction to the respondent University to consider Exhibit P7 representation of the petitioners in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders, as expeditiously as possible, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed with a direction to consider Exhibit P7 representation in accordance with law within three months.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

A. Shiju
Fep SiraJ
Rajendra Prasad
P.V. Prameela
A. Maya
M.S. Saritha
K. Murukan
V. Sheeja
PhreedaraJ
R.S. Saijuraj
T.C. Jaya
T.C. Molly
S.S. Sajeev
C. Sheeja
K.R. Shin
K. SaijuKumar
S.R. Ranju
S.K. Krishna Soni

Respondents

The Executive Committee, Kerala Agricultural University, KAU Post, Vellanikkara, Thrissur-680 654 (Represented by the Vice Chancellor)
The Registrar, Kerala Agricultural University, KAU Post, Vellanikkara, Thrissur-680 654
The Professor & Head, Instructional Farm, College of Agriculture, Vellayani P.O., Thiruvananthapuram-695 522

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• P.V. Jayachandran

Counsels for Respondents

• Babu Joseph Kuruvathazha, SC, KAU

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioners, a group of individuals trained under the ABARD project by the Kerala Agricultural University (KAU), challenged how they were treated relative to others in Exhibit P3 proceedings, contending parity and seeking absorption or regularisation in vacancies for casual labour. After years as daily wagers post-training, they submitted Exhibit P7 representations, but felt the issues remained unresolved. They argued that denial of due consideration would violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, and relied on a prior judgment of this Court (W.P.(C) No. 5165/2011, 2013) to urge that similar claims had been adjudicated and that the executive body of the University should decide in light of that ruling. The respondent University maintained that daily wagers do not acquire indefeasible rights to regularisation or absorption, citing the Constitution Bench decision in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi (3) (2006) 4 SCC 1, and contended that Exhibit P7 did not merit consideration beyond settled law. The Court acknowledged these positions and, balancing the decisions, disposed of the petition by directing the University to consider Exhibit P7 in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders within three months of receipt of this judgment, taking into account the relevant 2013 ruling. The judgment was delivered by a Single Judge, Dama Seshadri Naidu, J.

Provisions of Law Cited

Article 14 of the Constitution of IndiaArticle 16 of the Constitution of India

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

No indefeasible right to regularisation or absorption (as laid down in Umadevi, 2006)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners’ counsel contended that petitioners were placed similarly to those in Exhibit P3 and thus deserved parity in benefits, including absorption or regularisation in vacancies for casual labourers. They argued for consideration of Exhibit P7 in light of Exhibit P3 proceedings and a lawfully guided decision, to avoid Articles 14 and 16 violations. They urged that the matter ought to be decided by the competent executive committee and not be foreclosed by prior judgments, especially since Exhibit P7 representations remained pending.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondent University argued that daily wagers and trainees do not acquire indefeasible rights to regularisation or absorption. Citing the Constitution Bench decision in Umadevi (3), it asserted that Exhibit P7 does not deserve automatic consideration and that the law has been settled against such claims. It also pointed to the 2013 W.P.(C) No.5165/2011 judgment, which addressed similar claims and rejected them, arguing finality should prevent further pleas without a new, law-based reconsideration by the competent body.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi (3)	(2006) 4 SCC 1	Positive	Cited to support the principle that there is no indefeasible right to regularisation; the court relies on this doctrine to argue limitations on daily wagers' claims.

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. 28327 of 2014 (M) 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 DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU** **THURSDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2014/13TH AGRAHAYANA, 1936** ## **WP(C).No. 28327 of 2014 (M)** **----------------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S):** **--------------** **1. A.SHIJU, VARUVILA VEEDU, KAKKAMOOLA, KALLOYOUR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **2. FEPSIRAJ, KRISTHU VIHAR, VANDITHADAM, VELLAYANI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **3. RAJENDRAPRASAD, PRASAD BHAVAN, VANDITHADAM, VELLAYANI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **4. P.V.PRAMEELA,** - **SNEHA THEERAM, PALAPPUR, VELLAYANI P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **5. A. MAYA, KEEZHIMELE ERETHU VEEDU, VELLAYANI P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **6. M.S.SARITHA, MANAMUKKU VEEDU, KAKKAMOOLA, KALLIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **7. K.MURUKAN, CHARUVILA VEEDU, VENNIYOOR, NELLIVILA P.O., VENGANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **8. V.SHEEJA, KANNANKUZHIVEEDU, KAKKAMOOLA, KALLIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **9. PHREEDARAJ, KRISTHU VIHAR, VANDITHADAM, VELLAYANI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **10. R.S.SAIJURAJ, THUNDUVILA VEEDU, VANDITHADAM, VELLAYANI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** _**WP(C).No. 28327 of 2014 (M)**_ **11. T.C.JAYA,** - **ASHOK BHAVAN, THUNDUVILA, VANDITHADAM, VELLAYANI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** ## **12. T.C.MOLLY,** - **THUNDUVILA VEEDU, VANDITHADAM, VELLAYANI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **13. S.S.SAJEEV, KALIYILPUTHENVEEDU, PUNCHAKKARI, THIRUVALLAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **14. C.SHEEJA, VARUVILAVEEDU, KAKKAMOOLA, KALLIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **15. K.R.SHIN,** - **KUZHIYANVILAVEEDU, KAKKAMOOLA, KALLIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **16. K.SAIJUKUMAR, PALLATHUKAKKALVEEDU, KAKKAMOOLA, KALLIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **17. S.R.RANJU, PALLATHUKAKKALVEEDU, KAKKAMOOLA, KALLIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **18. S.K.KRISHNA SONI, SONI NIVAS, NEERAL, PALATHUR, VELLAYANI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **BY ADV. SRI.P.V.JAYACHANDRAN.** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** **--------------** **1. THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, KAU POST, VELLANIKKARA, THRISSUR-680 654, REPRESENTED BY THE VICE CHANCELLOR.** **2. THE REGISTRAR, KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, KAU POST, VELLANIKKARA, THRISSUR-680 654.** **3. THE PROFESSOR & HEAD, INSTRUCTIONAL FARM, COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE, VELLAYANI P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 522.** **BY SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA, SC, KAU.** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-12-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **RVS.** _**WP(C).No. 28327 of 2014 (M)**_ ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS : -----------------------** **EXT. P1: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 14.01.2011. EXT. P2: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 17.06.2010 WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION. EXT. P3: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.GA/F2/2434/2006 DATED 14.07.2010 WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION. EXT. P4: COPY OF THE PROCEEDING NO.F4/1856/2008 DATED 25.09.2010. EXT. P5: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 28.2.2014 WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION. EXT. P6: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 15.5.2014 WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION. EXT. P7: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 22.5.2014 WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION.** ## **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :** **----------------------NIL.** **/TRUE COPY/** ## **P.A.TO JUDGE** **RVS.** Dama Seshadri Naidu, J. ------------------------------------------- ## W.P.(C)No.28327 of 2014 M -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4[th] day of December, 2014 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioners in this writ petition, seeking what is said to be parity of treatment as has been meted out to certain allegedly similarly placed persons in Exhibit P3 proceedings of the respondent University, filed the present writ petition. 2. The facts in brief are that the petitioners, along with certain other persons, have been hand picked and trained by the respondent University under a scheme known as 'Agro Biotechnology Agency for Rural Employment Development (ABARD) Project'. Since they continued for a considerable time as daily wage employees in the respondent University after completing their training, they have submitted Exhibit P7 representation seeking WPC 28327/14 2 consideration of their claim to be appointed in the vacancies of casual labourers. Complaining of its non-disposal, the petitioners have approached this Court. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have been placed similarly as the persons in Exhibit P3 proceedings have been, and that whatever benefits that have been extended to them ought to have been extended to the petitioners as well, lest the action of the respondent University should fall foul of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel has further contended that though the respondent University without placing its defence on record has been canvassing that the issue stands settled by a judgment of this Court dated 03.01.2013 in W.P.(C)No.5165/2011, it cannot absolve the respondent University of its responsibility to consider Exhibit P7 representation submitted by the petitioners in accordance with law, taking into account Exhibit P3 proceedings. WPC 28327/14 3 4. The learned Standing counsel, per contra, has strenuously opposed the claims and contentions of the petitioners. He has submitted that the petitioners were trained and provided temporary employment as daily wagers which, under any circumstance, does not provide any indefeasible right to the petitioners to claim either regualrisation or absorption in any category of post under the University. Drawing the attention of this Court to a Constitution Bench decision in **Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi (3)** ((2006) 4 SCC 1), the learned Standing Counsel would strenuously contend that the petitioners' Exhibit P7 representation does not deserve any consideration as the law on that point has been well settled. 5. The learned Standing Counsel has placed before this Court the judgment dated 03.01.2013 rendered in W.P. (C)No.5165/2011, which deals with the same issue raised by the similarly placed persons. In fact, having considered all WPC 28327/14 4 the similar claims as raised presently by the learned counsel for the petitioners, a learned Single Judge of this Court rendered the judgment rejecting the claim of about hundred daily wage employees. According to the learned Standing Counsel, in the light of the finality given to the issue, it is a futile exercise to insist the respondent University to consider Exhibit P7 representation. 6. Indeed, the judgment dated 03.01.2013 squarely addresses the issue raised by the petitioners. At any rate, it is the fervent hope of the petitioners that the final say may well have come from the executive committee of the respondent University which alone is the competent authority for taking a decision concerning Exhibit P7. Leaving aside the technicalities, it will not cause any harm to the respondent University, if the said representation is considered taking into account the judgment rendered by this Court in W.P.(C)No.5165/2011. WPC 28327/14 5 In the facts and circumstances, this Court disposes of the writ petition with a direction to the respondent University to consider Exhibit P7 representation of the petitioners in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Dama Seshadri Naidu, Judge tkv