IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 21ST JUNE 2010 / 31ST JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 21504 of 2008(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SUHAIL P.M , AGED 23 YEARS, S/O. ABDUL MAJEED P.M.,LASHEERIMATTIL HOUSE NEEROLPALAM, THENHIPPALAM P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN 673 636. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.IBRAHIM SMT.K.P.AMBIKA SRI.THOMSTINE K.AUGUSTINE SRI.C.N.GOPAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR,CALICUT UNIVERSITY PO THENHIPALAM, MALAPPURAM 2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT,CALICUT UNIVERSITY PO THENHIPALAM, MALAPPURAM 3. THE SYNDICATE, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, CALICUT UNIVERSITY PO THENHIPALAM, MALAPPURAM ADDL.R4: 4.PARAMESWARAN C.P., AGED 41, CHATHANKUTTY, POOTHEN VALAPPIL HOUSE, CHERLARI P.O., VELIMUKKU, MALAPPURAM. ADDL.R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 25/7/2008 IN I.A.NO.10152/08 WPC.21504/08 ADV. SRI.ASOK M.CHERIAN,SC,CALICUT UNIERSITY FOR R1-3 SRI.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN FOR ADDL.R4 SRI.T.V.JAYAKUMAR NAMBOODIRI FOR ADDL.R4 SRI.THUSHAR NIRMAL SARATHY FOR ADDL.R4 SRI.M.M.VINOD KUMAR FOR ADDL.R4 SMT.K.M.RAMYA FOR ADDL.R4 SRI.SANTHOSH G. PRABHU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/06/2010 ALONG WITH WPC.NO.28580 OF 2008 & WPC NO. 36284 OF 2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC.21504/08 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.A.D.E1/7044/2005 DATED 20.06.2005 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE SYNDICATE HELD ON 29.10.2005. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE PRESS RELEASE NO.AD/E1/7044/05 DATED 02.07.2008 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE SYNDICATE HELD ON 26.12.2005. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 9.11.2005 IN W.P.(C).NO.21813/05 AND 24370/05 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE DECISION OF THE SYNDICATE MEETING HELD ON 28.2.2001. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE SYNDICATE HELD ON 13.9.2006. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.AD.A4/8605/06 DATED 21.7.2006 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE PRESS RELEASE NO.R.T/S.O./7044/05 DATED 30.06.2008 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: EXT.R1(A): COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 29.6.2007 IN W.P.(C).NO.4885/2007. EXT.R1(B): COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN CONTEMPT CASE © NO.187 OF 2008 DATED 8.2.2008. WP(C).NO.21504/08 EXT.R1(C): COPY OF THE I.A. FILED BY THE UNIVERSITY IN CONTEMPT CASE (CIVIL) NO.187 OF 2008 DATED 7.6.2008. EXT.R4(A): COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.4885/07 DATED 29.6.2007 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT. EXT.R4(B): COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN C.C.C.NO.187/08 DATED 8.2.2008 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE C.R. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN & S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JJ. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NOS.21504, 28580 & 36284 OF 2008 () ----------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. These writ petitions arise out of a situation relating to the recruitment to the category of “Integrated Cadre of Last Grade Employees Peons/Watchman” in the University of Calicut, which is at Serial No.34 in the schedule following Chapter XV of the Calicut University First Ordinances, 1978, hereinafter referred to as the “First Ordinances” made by the Government of Kerala in exercise of powers conferred by Section 82 of the Calicut University Act, 1975, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'. The said statutory provision envisages recruitment to that category by direct recruitment and category change in the ratio 4:1 among direct recruits and category change recruits. While W.P.(C).21504,28580 & 36284/08 2 direct recruitment is to be made on the basis of merit inviting applications by such method as the Syndicate may decide, category change is to be made from the cadre of Sweepers/Water bearer boys, Grounds man etc. who have completed five years' service. 2. With the statutory rules being in place as above, the University issued notification dated 20.6.2005 inviting applications. 3. It appears that there are casual labourers included in Casual Labourer Rolls (CLR) engaged by the University for different purposes. Some of them and their Association moved this Court and obtained a direction for consideration of a claim propounded by them, to wit, they be also included in the zone of choice for appointment to the Integrated Cadre of Last Grade Employees. Later, stating that the case of the CLR workers is under the active consideration, certain further directions were also sought for to expedite the matter. The Syndicate of the W.P.(C).21504,28580 & 36284/08 3 University ultimately issued a decision in its meeting on 29.12.2005 with item No.2005.764 in the Agenda, by which, it proposed to provide 50% break up of the total number of vacancies of Integrated Cadre of Last Grade Employees by dividing it equally among the direct recruits and the CLR workers. By this process, the statutory entitlement to four out of every five vacancies due to the direct recruits shrunk. Equally, those eligible for appointment for category change were totally thrown out from the field of choice. This situation has led to the writ petitions in hand. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, one set, aspiring for direct recruitment and another, aspiring for category change. We have also heard the Standing Counsel for the University, as also the learned counsel appearing for the CLR workers. 5. We notice that the case that went up for consideration to the Syndicate at the instance of the CLR workers was more of an W.P.(C).21504,28580 & 36284/08 4 issue relating to the heartburn of persons stagnating for decades together, or even decades, as included in the Casual Labourer Rolls. 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. W.P.(C).21504,28580 & 36284/08 5 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. 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 W.P.(C).21504,28580 & 36284/08 6 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. 9. We also notice that in one of the cases, in W.P.(C). No.28580 of 2008, the petitioner had challenged the present selection process. However, no arguments are addressed before us on that point. That ground is accordingly repelled. In the result, subject to what is stated in the immediately preceding paragraph, these writ petitions are allowed quashing the impugned Syndicate decision dated 29.12.2005. Any consequential notification or notice issued by the officers of the University following the impugned Syndicate decision will also stand quashed hereby. It is directed that the selection process shall be completed at the earliest in terms of the notification W.P.(C).21504,28580 & 36284/08 7 dated 20.6.2005 and the First Ordinances, as noted above. The appointments shall be made applying the ratio 4:1, between the direct recruits and category change recruits in terms of the statutory prescription in terms of the First Ordinances, as noticed in this judgment. No costs. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN JUDGE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp