IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 26TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 31067 of 2009(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. M.R.JESWANTH, AGED 50, S/O.M.K.RAVINDRAN, MALIAMVEETIL HOUSE, MADAPLATHURUTH, MOOTHAKUNNAM P.O., ERNAKULAM DIST, PIN - 683 516. 2. T.A.SIVASANKARAN, AGED 47, S/O.AYYAPPANKUNJU, THUNDIPARAMBIL HOUSE, MAJALIAMATTUPURAM, MANNAM P.O., ERNAKULAM DIST, PIN - 683 520. BY ADV. SRI.MAJNU KOMATH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, COCHIN UNIVERSITY P.O., KOCHI - 682 022, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. 2. THE REGISTRAR, COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, COCHIN UNIVERSITY P.O., KOCHI - 682 022. 3. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, COCHIN UNIVERSITY P.O., KOCHI - 682 022. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO HIGHER EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAI,SC,COCHI U FOR R1 TO 3 SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI T.T.MUHAMOOD FOR R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.31067/2009-C ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 26th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioners herein are Ex-servicemen who were working as Security Guards on daily wage basis from 01/10/1999 onwards with intermittent breaks and continued upto May 2006. It is the case of the petitioners that for the purpose of regular recruitment, they were directed to appear for an interview on 17/01/2001 and accordingly, a list was published as per Ext.P1. The period of ranked list was two years from the date of publication. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that only 8 persons were appointed from Ext.P1 ranked list. Seeking for a direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioners, they had approached this Court by filing O.P.No.22622/2002 and certain directions were issued by this Court. Only two more persons were appointed after the same and the ranked list expired on 31/01/2003. Stating that steps are being taken to make appointment to 10 posts of Security Guards on regular basis from outside, the petitioners submitted a request on 21/10/2004 to the second and third respondents. Ext.P2 is the copy of the said representation. Since there was delay in the matter, they approached this Court by filing W.P.(C).No.34304/2004. W.P.(C). No.31067/2009 -:2:- This Court by Ext.P3 Judgment dated 20/12/2004 disposed of the said writ petition with a direction to the first respondent University that in case if regular appointments are to be made before any fresh ranked list is published for the post of Security Guards, the claims of the petitioners shall also be considered, having regard to the fact that they were found eligible to be included in the earlier list and the further fact that they have earned long experience in that post. It is the claim of the petitioners that in terms of the directions, they are entitled for appointment. 3. In the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, it is pointed out that the University had conducted interview of candidates for appointment to the post of Security Guards on 8th and 9th September 2009 from the list forwarded by the Zila Sainik Welfare Offices and the ranked list has been approved by the Vice Chancellor on 09/10/2009. However, as the Model Code of Conduct due to bye-election was in force, the publication of the said ranked list was postponed as directed by the Vice Chancellor. Thereafter, the said ranked list was published on 10/11/2009 and advice for appointment to the selected candidates is being sent. W.P.(C). No.31067/2009 -:3:- 4. It is also the contention of the University that Ext.P3 Judgment does not prohibit the University from publishing a fresh ranked list. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners prayed that a direction may be issued to respondent Nos.1 to 3 to take a decision on Ext.P4 representation. The prayer in the said representation is to appoint them on the basis of Ext.P3 Judgment. 6. There will be a direction to the second respondent to give a proper reply to the petitioners with regard to their claim as raised in Ext.P4 within a period of one month. It is clarified that this Court has not adjudicated anything on the merits of their claim. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms