IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 18TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 27TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 28756 of 2010(T) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. SIVARAJAN VAKKAYIL, CLR WORKERS, CALICUT UNIVERSITY, VAMSEEKRISHNA, THENHIPALAM P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. SURESAN.K., CLR WORKERS, CALICUT UNIVERSITY, NAMBIDIPARAMBA, THENHIPALAM P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. VASANTHA U., CLR WORKERS, CALICUT UNIVERSITY, ASSARIKANDI HOUSE, VELIMUKKU SOUTH P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 4. C.K.MANI, CLR WORKERS, CALICUT UNIVERSITY, SHAJI NAVAS, THENHIPALAM P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI SMT.C.G.PREETHA SRI.T.K.SANDEEP SRI.ARJUN SREEDHAR SRI.ANEISH RAVINDRA SRI.ARUN KRISHNA DHAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, CALICUT UNIVERSITY POST, THENJIPPALAM, MALAPPURAM PIN - 673 636. 2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, CALICUT UNIVERSITY, CALICUT UNIVERSITY POST, THENJIPPALAM, MALAPPURAM - 673 636. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, CALICUT UTY. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C).No.28756 OF 2010 ------------------------------ Dated this the 18 th day of November, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioners are CLR Workers working in the Calicut University. In 2005, the Calicut University issued a Notification inviting applications from candidates for the selection to the post of Class-IV workers. At that juncture, the Association of CLR workers filed WP(C) No.24370 of 2005. It is stated that some other CLR workers filed WP(C) No.21813 of 2005 and the petitioners filed WP(C) No.33172 of 2005. The Writ Petition filed by the petitioners was disposed of as per Ext.P1 judgment dated 20 th December, 2005. The judgment reads as follows: “It is conceded by the learned counsel for the writ petitioners as well as Stating Counsel for the Calicut University that similar matters have been disposed of by this court vide judgment in WP(C) No.21813/2005. A copy of the judgment in that case is available before me. Accordingly, this Writ Petition will stand disposed of in the following terms:- The Calicut University, which is the first respondent, will take a W.P.(C).No.28756 OF 2010 2 decision on the issue as who all among those mentioned in Ext.P6 list in W.P.(C) No.21813/2005 (the complete list updated as on 31.1.2005) can be given appointment to the posts notified as per Ext.P1 within a maximum period of one month from the day the petitioners produce a copy of this judgment before them. Once the University takes a decision on the basis of this direction, the same will be communicated to all the petitioners. Till such time as the University takes a decision on the basis of the above directions, Ext.P1 will be kept in abeyance.” 2. The Syndicate of the University took a decision on 29.12.2005 for providing reservation of 50% of the vacancies of Last Grade employees to CLR workers. The decision of the Syndicate of the University was challenged in WP(C) No.21504 of 2008 and connected Writ Petitions. The Writ Petitioners in those Writ Petitions contended that recruitment to the category of “Integrated Cadre of Last Grade Employees Peons/Watchman” in the University shall be in the ratio 4:1 among direct recruits and category change recruits. It was contended that the decision of the University to reserve 50% of the vacancies for W.P.(C).No.28756 OF 2010 3 CLR workers was against the provisions in the First Ordinances of the University. Those Writ Petitions were disposed of by the Division Bench as per Ext.P3 judgment dated 21 st June, 2010, holding thus: “6. But, the fact of the matter remains that the First Ordinances prescribed the method of recruitment and the qualification, as also the ratio in which the intake has to be made from two different sources. That is part of statute law. It is the part of the First Ordinances made by the Government of Kerala in exercise of statutory power under Section 82 of the Act. That provision in the First Ordinances could be modulated further, only by amendment thereto, as enjoined by law, by the competent University Authority in terms of Section 37 of the Act. Bereft of such amendment, there can be no excuse for going away from the statutory prescriptions as to the mode, ratio and source regarding recruitment. In this view of the matter, the decision of the Syndicate issued on 29.12.2005 with Serial No.2005.764, which is impugned in these writ petitions, has necessarily to go. 7. What remains is the plight of those included in the CLR . The learned counsel appearing for them very persuasively pointed out that they are likely to stagnate, essentially through out their career as included in the CLR and would not be eligible for consideration by direct recruitment as many of them have crossed the age bar for applying for such consideration. This is not a matter on which any concession could be made by this Court in exercise of the constitutional power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, having regard to the fact that the statute, which is governing the situation, is within the frame work of the Constitution and the laws and has to be read and applied. W.P.(C).No.28756 OF 2010 4 Otherwise, it would contradict and offend the statutory provisions. We, however, leave open the rights, if any, of the CLR workers to seek indulgence of the University for appropriate modulations, even of the First Ordinances. 8. However, in so far as the selection on the basis of the notification dated 20.6.2005 is concerned, the law that applies is the one that was in force at the time of notification and the said notification has to be given effect to by making selection and appointment in terms of the First Ordinances as they have been noticed herein, including the prescriptions as to qualification, method of recruitment and ratio to be maintained between the direct recruits and category change recruits.” The Division Bench allowed the Writ Petitions and quashed the decision dated 29.12.2005 of the Syndicate. A direction was issued to complete the selection process in terms of the Notification dated 20.6.2005 and the First Ordinances and to make appointments applying the ratio 4 :1 between direct recruits and category change recruits. It would appear that Ext.P3 has become final. 3. The reliefs prayed for in the Writ Petition are the following: W.P.(C).No.28756 OF 2010 5 “i) to call for the marks obtained by each candidate who appeared for the written test held on 17.8.2008; ii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 1st respondent to grant appointment to the petitioners 1 to 3 against the post of peon/watchman either by relaxing the rules or carrying out necessary amendments in the Rules with retrospective effect. iii) declare that the petitioners are entitled to be appointed against the post of peon/ watchman under the 1st respondent; And iv) Grant such other reliefs as are deem just and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case.” In view of the judgment of the Division Bench dated 21 st June, 2010 mentioned above, I am of the view that the petitioners are not entitled to the reliefs prayed for in the Writ Petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE. cms