IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DECEMBER 2008 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 30925 of 2008(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. MOHMMEDALI.P, S/O.KUNCHAYAMMED, AGED 31 YEARS, CASUAL LABOURER, LIVE STOCK RESEARCH STATION, KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, THIRUVIZHAMKUNNU, PALAKKAD 678 602. 2. SAROJINI.M, -DO-, -DO-. 3. THRESIA.P.C., -DO-. 4. C.B.SURESH KUMAR, -DO-, -DO-. 5. MUHAMMED.C, -DO-, -DO-. 6. P.S.THILAKAN, CASUAL LABOURER, CATTLE BREEDING FARM, KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, THUMBOORMUZHI, CHALAKKUDY, THRISSUR 680 721. 7. P.K.SIVADASAN, -DO-, -DO-. 8. C.J.BIJU, -DO-, -DO-. 9. LISSY.K.L., -DO-, -DO-. 10. G.KUNJACHAN, CASUAL LABOURER, RICE RESEARCH STATION, KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, MANCOMBU, ALAPPUZHA 688 503. 11. P.V.LALITHAMMA, -DO-, -DO-. BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SHRI.K.E.HAMSA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR AT MANNUTHY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, MANNUTHY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. WPC NO.30925/2008 3. THE DEAN, COLLEGE OF VETERINARY, KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, MANNUTHY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 4. THE CHAIRMAN, EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, MANNUTHY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. SHRI.RENJITH THAMPAN, SC FOR R1.S THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 30925 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of December, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner claims to be casual labourers under the respondent University. According to them, they have undergone Live Stock Assistant Training and are qualified for being considered for the post of Farm Assistant(Veterinary). It is stated that without considering them, the University is proceeding with the recruitment by inducting outsiders. It is with this grievance the writ petition is filed. 2. The learned Standing Counsel for the University has obtained instructions. According to him, the petitioners and similarly situated several persons were appointed as casual labourers by the University. It is stated that accepting the recommendations of Justice Bhaskaran Nambiar Commission report, their services were terminated. The order of termination was challenged before this Court and this Court in the judgment in W.A.No.2201/1998 and connected cases, upheld the termination. However, subsequently, R.P.No.511/2004 was filed by the terminated casual labourers and this Court passed orders W.P.(C) No. 30925/2008 -2- permitting them to continue in their jobs until regular hands join duty without conferring any rights. It is stated that, therefore, the petitioners' cannot claim to be internal candidates and that there is no special rights conferred in their favour. 3. In the light of the aforesaid factual situation, the petitioners can not claim any special privilege. If that be so, the stand of the University that it is entitled to pursue with the recruitment is only to be upheld. 4. Although, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that certain similarly situated persons have been regularised and that they are entitled to similar treatment, I am not in a position to accept the same. First of all, the learned counsel for the University points out that those regularised were ordered based on the judgment. Even otherwise, in so far as the petitioners are concerned, in view of the judgment of the Division Bench, they are governed by the terms therein. Therefore, the writ petition is only to be dismissed, and I do so. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg