IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 23RD AUGUST 2007 / 1ST BHADRA 1929 WP(C).No. 32865 of 2005(K) --------------------------------- PETITIONERS: ---------------- 1. NALINI.K.A. KAPPARIKKAL HOUSE, PATTIKKADU P.O. VADAKKUMPADOM, THRISSUR. 2. A.D.VERONI, ARAPPURACKAL VEEDU, MANNUTHY, THRISSUR. 3. MINI WILSON, PAYYAPPATTU VEEDU, PATTALAKUNNU, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN SRI.P.M.BENZIR SRI.DEEPU LAL MOHAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, VELLANIAKKARA, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. 2. THE DEAN, COLLEGE OF VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCES, KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.N.D.PREMACHANDRAN, SC, AGRL.UNTY. SRI.RENJITH THAMPAN SC., KAU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/08/2007, ALONG WITH WPC NO.442/2005 AND CONNECTED CASES THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.32865/2005 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1:- COPY OF THE LETTER NO.GA/B2/2717/03 DT. 13.6.03 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2:- COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.E3/4161/01 DT. 14/7.03 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P3:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 16.9.04 IN WPC 25666/04 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXT.P4:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.E3/6769/2000 DT. 5.1.05 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P5:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 8.7.05 IN CCC.NO.1572/04 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT EXT.P6:- COPY OF THE LETTER NO.GA/B2/2717/03 DT. 24.6.05 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE tss S. SIRI JAGAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 32865 of 2005 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 7th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T 1. Petitioners were earlier engaged by the 1st respondent University on contract basis on daily wages. Their services were dispensed with. They approached this court challenging the same by filing W.P.(C) No.25666/2004. In that writ petition learned Judge of this court passed the following judgment: “The writ petition is filed with the following prayers.:- i) to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 2nd respondent to engage the petitioners as daily wages employees until regular hands join service. ii) to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents not to appoint fresh provisional hands to the post of daily rated employees in the University. iii) to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction restraining the respondents from making any selection for provisional appointment to the post of class IV/daily rated employees from the list forwarded by the Employment Exchange, Trichur vide proceedings No.0/243 to 248/04 dated 26.05.2004 and 0/336/04 to 0/337/04. iv) to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to consider the petitioners also for appointment to the post of daily rated employees along with candidates sponsored by employment exchange. 2. It is seen that the petitioners had approached this court earlier also leading to Ext.P6 judgment. This court at para 3 of the judgment held W.P.(C)No. 32865 of 2005 -2- as follows:- It is also submitted that there is no casual engagement as has been stated by the petitioners in the writ petition and as a matter of fact, the scavenging work is carried out by the last grade employees, who are the regular staff of the University. This arrangement is found to be working and the University has also no satisfactory financial resources for engaging additional staff. If this is the position, though the counsel for the petitioners submits that the statement could be unsafe to be accepted, I accept them as coming from a responsible Standing Counsel. Further the petitioners have no legal rights to be enforced. Consequentially, the writ petition stands dismissed. 3. Referring to the statement filed on behalf of the University it is submitted that the University has no intention to engage provisional hands for doing the scavenging work. It is being done by the existing employees, until regular appointments are made. In the above circumstances, I dispose of the writ petition making it clear that in the event of the University engaging any casual sweepers on daily wages, the petitioners shall be given preference.” 2. After Ext.P3 judgment, by Ext.P4 order the University engaged provisional employees for doing sweeping works without considering the petitioners. The petitioners filed a contempt case in which Ext.P5 judgment was passed. It reads as follows: “Petitioners complain of violation of Annexure A judgment. Sri. Premachandran, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, submits that no appointment of casual sweepers has been made after the judgment. Counsel for the petitioners further submits that the 1st respondent has issued a direction to the second respondent to engage the petitioners as sweepers on daily wages. If there is a direction by the Registrar the Dean has necessarily to comply with the directions. Therefore, the first respondent will see that his directions are duly complied with immediately. The C.C.C. is accordingly closed.” W.P.(C)No. 32865 of 2005 -3- 3. Subsequent to the same the petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: “i) To issue a writ of Mandamus or other appropriate Writ, Order of direction directing the 2nd respondent to engage the Petitioners as Class IV employees or sweepers on provisional basis until regular hands join service. ii) To issue a writ of Mandamus or other appropriate Writ, Order or direction directing the Respondents to give preference to the Petitioners in the event of the University engaging any Class IV employees or sweepers on provisional basis. iii) To issue a writ of Mandamus or other appropriate Writ, Order or direction directing the 2nd Respondent to implement the direction issued by the 1st Respondent in Ext.P6 letter. iv) to issue a writ of Mandamus or other appropriate Writ, Order or direction directing the Respondents not to appoint fresh provisional hands to the post of Sweepers or in Class IV category on provisional basis. v) To order the cost of the proceedings under Rule 157 of the Kerala High Court Rules.” 4. The contention of the petitioners is that in view of Ext.P3 judgment even for engagement for Class IV employees the petitioners should be given preference. 5. A statement has been filed on behalf of the University . They have stated thus: “It is respectfully submitted that the candidates engaged through Employment Exchange or on daily wage basis were not doing the sweeping work. They were posted against the vacant post of Class-IV employees and were doing the work of Peons, Office Attendants and Lab Attendants. For a professional college the classes cannot be withheld or suspended due to the dearth of Class – IV employees. Since the statute framed by the University has not obtained assent the University is not in a position to make regular appointment of Class -IV employees from open market. As per the W.P.(C)No. 32865 of 2005 -4- provisions under KS & SSR if a permanent vacancy cannot be filled up on regular basis selection should be made trough Employment Exchange. Daily wage engagement can be resorted to only for stop gap arrangement. The details of the appointment of Class-IV employees through Employment Exchanges and on daily wage basis are furnished below:” 6. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. The petitioners could not satisfy me that under any provision of law they are entitled to be considered in preference to the very many unemployed persons in the state. In the matter of public employment every citizen has a right to be considered. Simply because at one point of time petitioners had been engaged on provisional basis, they do not get any right for preferential appointment in future. Admittedly their earlier employment was on contract basis on daily wages. They have no case that they have been appointed after undergoing a selection process. If petitioners are given preference in appointment it would amount to violation of the fundamental rights of the very many unemployed persons in the country who are also equally entitled to be considered for appointment in the University in so far as the same is public employment. That W.P.(C)No. 32865 of 2005 -5- would also encourage appointment through back door. Ext.P3 judgment does not confer any preferential right for appointment on the petitioners. On a reading of Ext.P3 it is abundantly clear that the court was moved by sympathy only. But I am of the opinion that the very many other unemployed persons who also have a right to be considered for public employment are also entitled to equal sympathy. As such Ext.P3 does not confer any right on the petitioners for preferential appointment in future vacancies. In the above circumstances I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE shg/