IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2011 / 19TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 25601 of 2007(W) ------------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- 1. V.K.KURIAN,S/O.P.KURIAN,AGED 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT VALIYATHARAYIL CHANKILATHU HOUSE, PATHIYOOR P.O,ALAPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 690 552. 2. SABU THOMAS, S/O.THOMAS V.J,AGED 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT VETTICKAL HOUSE,CELICHIYATH, VENGATHANAM P.O,PARATHODU 686 512. BY ADVS. SRI.K.J.GEORGE KUNNUMPURATH, SRI.JOHN JOSEPH(ROY). RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTAPURAM. 2. COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTAPURAM. 3. THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS,ATHIRAMPUZHA,KOTTAYAM. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. SMITHA SUKUMAR R3 BY ADV. SRI. T.A. SHAJI, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.25601/2007 W APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 15/11/1989 ALONG WITH THE COVERING LETTER DTD. 27/11/1989. P2: COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE SYNDICATE HELD ON 11TH AND 12TH OCTOBER, 1999. P3: COPY OF RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE MINUTES OF THE SYNDICATE HELD ON 17/02/2000 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P4: COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE REGISTRAR OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE DIRECTORATE OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION DTD. 3/11/1999. P5: COPY OF JUDGMENT DTD. 9/11/2001 IN O.P.NO.31060 OF 2000. P6: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 27/11/2001 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P7: COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 17/1/2002 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P8: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P.NO.4430/02 DTD. 13/12/2004 OF THE HON'BLE COURT. P9: COPY OF THE ORDER G.O.(RT) NO.955/05 DTD. 2/06/2005 PASSED BY 1ST RESPONDENT. P10: COPY OF THE ORDER G.O.M.S.263/7C3/HD TRIVANDRUM DTD.23/10/1973. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 25601 of 2007 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 10th day of March, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioners were employees of a private institute by name Indian Institute of Regional Developments Studies (IRDS), Kottayam. The institution was established by a private individual in the year 1976. That Institute was recognized by the University as a center for imparting studies in Ph. D programmes by the Universities of Kerala and Calicut. While so, the Government decided to take over the said institute and integrate the same with the School of Social Sciences of Mahatma Gandhi University in the year 1991. At the time of taking over, the petitioners were employees of the institute. The Government considered the question of absorption of the employees of the institute by the University. In the meeting of all concerned held on 15.11.1980 convened by the Minister (Education and Law) to discuss the matters relating to the question of taking over of the Indian Institute of Regional Development Studies, a decision was taken directing the Mahatma Gandhi University to consider the question of providing suitable employment for the regular non- teaching staff of the institute. Pursuant thereto, the Syndicate of the Mahatma Gandhi University considered the matter in its meeting held on 11th and 12th of October, 1999 and took the following decision: “ITEM 607: Absorption of staff of IIrds – Report from the Directors of School of Social Sciences & School of Gandhian Thought & Development Studies – Reg. Considered the following recommendations regarding post, scale of pay and conditions of service of the six IIRDS staff. Name Post Scale of pay 1. Dr. C. Jose Thomas Project Officer Rs.6675-10550/- (Revised state scale of lecturers) W.P(C) No. 25601 of 2007 -: 2 :- 2. V.K.Kurian Project Assistant Rs.4500-7000 3. Sabu Thomas Field Assistant Rs.3050-5230 4. K.S.Rema Devi L.D. Typist Rs.3500-5400 5. Sabu K.G. Peon } }Class IV 6. P.M. Shaji Messenger } Rs.2610-3680 Resolved that the above persons on appointment may be considered as a separate stream and they shall not be considered along with similar category of employees in the regular stream. The date of effect of absorption may be fixed as the date of syndicate decisions. Service put in by them IIRDS will not be considered for any further service benefits. The appointment is subject to the sanction from the Empowering Committee.” By Ext. P4 communication dated 3.11.1999, the Registrar of the Mahatma Gandhi University requested the Director of Collegiate Education, who was the Principal Secretary of the Empowering Committee constituted by the Government to place the recommendations regarding the absorption of the petitioners and others before the Empowering Committee for approval. But, it was never so placed. The petitioners and others approached this Court by filing O.P.No. 31060/2000. By Ext. P5 judgment, this Court directed the Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department to consider the claim of the petitioners and others. Pursuant to the same, the petitioners and others filed Ext. P6 representation. By Ext. P7 order dated 17.1.2002, the Government held as follows: “The University is already burdened with excess ministerial staff. The situation has been further aggravated with de-linking of Pre-Degree from affiliated colleges. Moreover, there is no provision in the University W.P(C) No. 25601 of 2007 -: 3 :- statutes to absorb staff in a private organization. Appointment to the posts in University can be made only through open selection by advertisement and scrutiny by a selection committee envisaged in the statutes. It is not proper on the part of the University to enter into agreement with private organization that their staff would be absorbed in University. The procedure proposed is illegal and would cause unnecessary additional financial burden to the University.” The petitioners again approached this Court by filing O.P.No. 4430/2002, wherein, this Court, by Ext. P8 judgment, directed the Government to re-consider the matter after hearing the petitioners. Subsequently, by Ext. P9 order, the Government again rejected the claim of the petitioners. According to the petitioners, the Government had, at the time of taking over T.D. Medical College, Alappuzha, which was also a private establishment, absorbed the employees of that institution as employees of the Government Medical College. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: “(i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, quashing Ext. P9 Government Order No. G.O.(Rt) No. 955/2005/H.Edn. dated 2.6.2005 of the 1st respondent. (ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondent to issue orders approving the absorption of the petitioners in the light of Ext. P2, Ext. P3 and Ext. P4 forthwith and to disburse the arrears of salary and all service benefits due to the petitioners from the date of taken over of the institute by the respondents.” 2. The Government as well as the University would contend to support the action of the respondents in the matter. 3. I am of opinion that the petitioners have been treated unjustly in the matter. At that time when the Government took W.P(C) No. 25601 of 2007 -: 4 :- over the Institute, the Government was of opinion that the Mahatma Gandhi University should consider the question of suitable employment for the regular non-teaching staff of the institute. In accordance with that opinion of the Government only, the University now took the decision to appoint the petitioners in a separate stream, without considering them along with similar category of employees in regular service. They had placed this proposal before the Government and sought permission from the Empowering Committee with regard to the same. Despite the request from the University, the same was never placed before the Empowering Committee. Thereafter, I do not think that the Government is justified in taking the stand that since the petitioners were employees of a private institute, the University should not absorb them. It was as a private institute the Government had taken over the same. At that time, knowing fully well that the petitioners were employees of a private institution taken over by the Government, the Government themselves directed the University to consider the question of providing suitable employment for the non-teaching staff of the institute. In accordance with that direction of the Government only, the University also took a decision to appoint the petitioners as a separate stream without considering the petitioners along with similar category of employees. After having undergone this elaborate process, I do not think that the Government and the University is justified in going back on the promises made by them to the petitioners at the time of taking over the Institute. By that promise, which was acted upon by the University also, the Government and the University practically killed the necessity of the petitioners to search for other jobs and W.P(C) No. 25601 of 2007 -: 5 :- made them wait for appointment by the University. Having done so the respondents cannot now go back on their promise. Accordingly, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the University to implement the decision in Ext. P2 to appoint the petitioners as a separate stream without considering them along with similar category of employees in the regular stream. Orders in this regard shall be passed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/