IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 13TH DECEMBER 2010 / 22ND AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 36126 of 2010(M) PETITIONER: --------------- LISHA.K, CHIRAMMAL HOUSE, PARAPPRAM P.O., PINARAYI, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE KANNUR UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, MANGATTUPARAMBA, KANNUR-670 567. 2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, KANNUR UNIVERSITY, MANGATTUPARAMBA, KANNUR- 670 567. BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.M.SASEENDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C). NO.36126 OF 2010 M ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 13th day of December, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a candidate who was included in the rank list published by the Kannur University for selection and appointment to the post of Assistant Grade II. It is stated that the petitioner is rank No.59 in the main list published on 2.8.2010. The petitioner states that at the time of issuing the notification inviting candidates for direct recruitment, 57 vacancies were available. At the time of finalization of the rank list, 64 vacancies were available. However, in the notification, only 45 vacancies were notified. 2. W.P.(C) No.21142 of 2010 was filed by one Shynij,T.K., alleging that the University had taken a decision to appoint persons on regular basis from the rank list, over and above the notified vacancies. In that Writ Petition, an interim order was passed restraining the University from doing so. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the University is engaging W.P.(C) NO.36126 OF 2010 :: 2 :: employees on contract basis or provisional basis in the existing vacancies. The petitioner made representation before the University requesting at least to engage her on contract basis or casual basis. Ext.P2 minutes of the Committee of the Administration Branch, consisting of the Pro Vice Chancellor, Registrar and others, is relied on by the petitioner. From Ext.P2, it is seen that on 2.11.2010, the Committee resolved as follows: “Committee also recommends to seek legal opinion on engagement of Assistants on daily wage basis from the rank list in force (in the light of the direction from Hon'ble High Court restricting postings to a total number 45 from the rank list.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on paragraph 10 of the Division Bench judgment in K.P.S.C.Reserve Conductors Rank Holders Association and others v. State (1996 (2) KLT 306), wherein it was held thus: “10. A question as to whether candidates who were included in the ranked list prepared by the Public Service Commission which expired, was to be operated on for filling up temporary vacancies came up for W.P.(C) NO.36126 OF 2010 :: 3 :: consideration in State of Haryana v. M.P.Sarma, AIR 1994 SC 1804. Their Lordships took the view that if the appointing authority chooses to make appointments on ad hoc basis, then certainly the candidates in the waiting list, though it lapsed, must be considered for appointment dehors the Rules. Their Lordships also said that the said appointment may not confer any right to the appointees for future recruitment. If that be the law that is to apply, we find no justification on the part of the Corporation in engaging the provisional hands and empanelled hands to work as conductors when a proper ranked list published by the Public Service Commission is in force.” 5. The Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the University proposes to take a decision for engaging candidates who are included in the rank list on a casual basis until the vacancies are filled up by regular selection and appointment. It is submitted by the Standing Counsel for the University that it is necessary to engage persons, taking into account the workload involved, and therefore, the University is not against engaging persons from the rank list purely on a casual basis until regular selection and appointments are made. It is also submitted by W.P.(C) NO.36126 OF 2010 :: 4 :: the Standing Counsel that any decision taken would be subject to the result of W.P.(C) No.21142 of 2010. 6. The reliefs prayed for in the Writ Petition are the following: “(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction commanding and compelling the University to effect provisional appointment from the Ranked list to the existing vacancies either on permanent/temporary basis; (ii) Declare that the petitioner being a candidate included in the ranked list is after due process of selection is entitled to get appointment at least on provisional basis to the vacancies exists in the service of the University; (iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction commanding and compelling the respondent to disengage the persons who have been appointed on contract/provisional basis so as to give appointment to the petitioner and similarly placed persons who have been included in the ranked list after due process of selection; W.P.(C) NO.36126 OF 2010 :: 5 :: and (iv) to issue such other writ, order or direction as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of this case.” Since the University has not taken any decision in the matter and since the University is not against engaging the persons included in the rank list on a casual basis till regular appointments are made, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the University to take a decision on the recommendation made by the Committee, as evidenced by Ext.P2, taking into account all the relevant facts and circumstances of the case. The University shall take appropriate decision within a period of one month. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/