IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI THURSDAY, THE 11TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 20TH KARTHIKA 1932 WA.No. 1850 of 2010() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.8394/2010 Dated 30/06/2010 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------ JOSE PAUL, AGED 45 YEARS, NALPAT (H), SOUTH ANGADI, KORATTY, THRISSUR. BY ADV. JOSE PAUL (PARTY-IN-PERSON) SRI.SHOBY K.FRANCIS RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. REGISTRAR, KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, THRISSUR. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT. BY GOVT. PLEADR SMT.T.B.REMANI ADV.SRI.K.P.MUJEEB, SC FOR R1 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A.No.1850 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 11th day of November, 2010 JUDGMENT Basheer, J. More than 18 years ago Kerala Agricultural University, Thrissur came out with a notification inviting applications from eligible candidates for appointment to the vacant posts in Class IV category. Appellant had submitted an application in response to the above notification. But nothing happened thereafter. 2. Deeply frustrated and distressed, the appellant approached this court under Article 226 of the Constitution in the year 1999, praying for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Vice-Chancellor and the Registrar of the University to take steps for filling up the posts in terms of the notification referred to above. The original petition was disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this court with the following direction : “Under these circumstances, I am constrained to issue a direction to the University to frame statute in the matter of appointment to the various posts W.A.No.1850/2010 2 including class IV within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till statutes are framed and new recruitments are made, no fresh appointment shall be made.” 3. A copy of the said judgment is on record as Ext.P1. 4. The University challenged the above judgment before the Division Bench. It was submitted by the University that steps were afoot to frame statutes and also to lay down norms for regulating appointments in the University in the light of the recommendations made by Justice Bhaskaran Nambiar Commission. The Division Bench disposed of the writ appeal directing the State Government as well as the University to take prompt action on the report of Justice Bhaskaran Nambiar Commission while emphasing the need for framing statutes so as to avoid arbitrariness and favourism in the matter of selection. A copy of the judgment dated October 11, 2000 in the writ appeal is on record as Ext.P2. 5. It appears that nothing very drastic or constructive turned out despite the judgment referred to above. According to the appellant, the University did not fill up the various posts in Class IV W.A.No.1850/2010 3 category on a regular basis. He further alleged that the University had been making appointments in violation of all norms or principles of fair play. He therefore approached this court again and filed a writ petition with an identical prayer as had been made in the earlier original petition. The learned Single Judge noticed that no appreciable progress had been made by the University to frame statues or lay down norms for regular recruitments in the University. However, the court noticed that the Chancellor had reportedly given his assent to the statutes to be framed in the University. The learned Single Judge therefore disposed of the writ petition with the following direction : “ In view of this and also taking into account the fact that assent has been granted by the Chancellor to the statures framed by the University, I direct that the University shall initiate recruitment process for class IV posts as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of three months from today.” 6. Ext.P3 is stated to be the copy the the said judgment dated November 20, 2008. Even thereafter, nothing happened. It appears that in November 2009, the University issued Ext.P4 notification W.A.No.1850/2010 4 inviting fresh applications from eligible candidates for appointment to the various posts in Class IV category. The said notification was sought to be quashed by the appellant before the learned Single Judge contending inter alia that the failure of the University in making appointment pursuant to the earlier notification of the year 1992 has caused grave prejudice to him in as much as he has been denied an opportunity to get employment. He pointed out that going by the eligibility criteria prescribed in Ext.P4 notification, he would not be eligible to apply since he had become over-aged. 7. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that the University was entitled to make appointment in terms of the provisions contained in the statutes and the norms prescribed for such recruitment especially in the light of Exts.P1 and P2 judgments. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned standing counsel for the University. We have also perused the entire materials available on record. 9. Though the heartburn of the appellant is understandable, it cannot be said that Ext.P4 notification issued by the University is liable W.A.No.1850/2010 5 to be quashed, as contended by him. Undoubtedly, the apathy and inaction on the part of the University to make recruitment to the various posts in Class IV category pursuant to 1992 notification cannot be justified under any circumstances. Similarly, the delay in framing statues and laying down norms for recruitment is also totally reprehensible. But still, the University may be justified in contending for the position that its hands were tied in making regular appointments in view of the directions issued by this court in Ext.P1 and P2 judgments. 10. In any view of the matter, the prayer made by the appellant in the writ petition to quash Ext.P4 cannot be entertained at all. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. The writ appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE sv. W.A.No.1850/2010 6 W.A.No.1850/2010 7