IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2011 / 8TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).NO. 12823 OF 2010(C) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- SAJEEV KUMAR. K.R, THACHETHU HOUSE, ERUMPANAM.P.O, THIRUVANKULAM, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, SRI.S.RAJ MOHAN, SMT.J.DEEPTHI ROSE. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, REP. BY THE REGISTRAR, COCHIN UNIVERSITY. P.O, COCHIN -22. 2. THE REGISTRAR, COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, COCHIN UNIVERSITY. P.O, COCHIN -22. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHANPILLAY, SC, CUSAT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/01/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs WP(C) NO. 12823/2010-C APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 23/04/2005. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 13/02/2006. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE MEMO NO.AD.G2/101/72 DATED 07/12/2006. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE MEMO NO.AD.G2/214/72 (VOL.III) DATED 08/06/2007. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE MEMO NO.AD/G2/214/72 (VOL.III) DATED 13/07/2007. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.AD/G2/214/72 (VOL.III) DATED 11/09/2007. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE PAY FIXATION STATEMENT NO.FIN.II PR-04/901/06/02038 DATED 18/10/2007. EXT.P7(a): COPY OF THE ORDER NO.AD.G2/2370/2006 (1) DATED 17/11/2007. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.AD.G2/214/72 (VO.III) DATED 08/01/2008. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PVC, DATED 18/12/2008. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.AD.G2/2370/2006 DATED 13/05/2009. EXT.P11: COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACTS OF THE MINUTES OF THE SYNDICATE MEETING DATED 13/05/2009. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J. ------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.12823 Of 2010 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 28th DAY OF JANUARY, 2011 J U D G M E N T The main prayer in the Writ Petition is for a direction to the University to appoint the petitioner as Light Duty Driver in the service of the University in the first arising vacancy. He is also seeking for a declaration that he is entitled to get appointment as Light Duty Driver in the service of the University in preference to any other daily rated employees or regular employees. 2. The University had issued a notification for appointment of Light Duty Driver and the petitioner was included as rank No.2 in the ranked list published on 13.2.2006. It appears that one regular vacancy was notified. But, the petitioner being rank No.2, he was given a temporary engagement initially on daily wage basis. First respondent invited application to fill up one post of Light Duty Driver in the scale of pay Rs.3350-5275 as per Exhibit P1 notification. After due process of selection, the ranked list was published. The ranked list was in force only for a period of two years. The W.P.(C)No.12823/10 -2- provisional engagement of the petitioner is evident from Exhibit P3 memo. Again by Exhibit P4, he was given a temporary appointment in the scale of pay of Rs.5510-8590 in a leave vacancy. The memo issued pursuant to the same is produced as Exhibit P5. Later, he was sanctioned special allowance also as per Exhibit P6 and Exhibit P7 is the statement of pay fixation, which was granted to the petitioner. 3. One of the drivers, who has undergone disciplinary proceedings was reinstated and then transferred along with the post of driver from the Office of the Pro-Vice Chancellor to another Department and one HD Driver was shifted back to the office of the Pro-Vice Chancellor and the petitioner was permitted to continue in the said post in the light of Exhibit P7(a) order. The temporary appointment of the petitioner was being extended from time to time, which is evident from Exhibit P8 order. Therefore, according to the petitioner, he had been continuing uninterruptedly from 7.12.2006 in the light of different orders and he was granted various benefits also. By Exhibit P10 order, he was finally retrenched from service stating that he will get a right for new appointment as and when vacancy arises. According to the petitioner, these orders will W.P.(C)No.12823/10 -3- confer a right on him for reappointment on a regular basis. 4. The University has filed a counter affidavit explaining various facts. It is explained that the petitioner was even though included as rank No.2, no regular vacancy arose for appointment of the petitioner. Rank No.1 was given appointment in a regular vacancy. The 7th rank holder was given appointment in a regular vacancy as a beneficiary of the rules of reservation and communal reservation under the KS&SSR. Vacancies which arose thereafter were only of a temporary nature and it is averred in paragraph No.10 that under no circumstances the petitioner can claim appointment to any regular vacancy which arose after the expiry of the ranked list. It is also averred that by virtue of his temporary appointment or engagement on daily wages, he did not get any right for appointment against any future vacancies. 5. The averments of the petitioner as well as the respondents show that the process of regular appointment is by issuance of notification and conducting a selection process which clearly culminates in the publication of a ranked list. True that the petitioner was engaged on a temporary basis for a considerable long period. It is well settled that such W.P.(C)No.12823/10 -4- engagements will not confer any right on the person who is the beneficiary of the engagement. When the method of appointment is by conducting selection process followed by regular appointment, a person who had obtained temporary appointment cannot get a right for regularisation. The above legal position is well settled. 6. True that the petitioner was given various benefits. But that is only on the post which was being held on a temporary basis. The same cannot confer any right of permanency on the petitioner or a right of reappointment as and when regular vacancies arise. Whenever a notification is issued for regular appointment, the petitioner will have to compete along with other candidates. The learned counsel for the petitioner then prayed that as and when temporary engagements are made, the petitioner may be appointed. It is upto the University to consider his claim for temporary engagement as and when vacancies arise. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Sd/-( T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) dsn True copy P.A.to Judge