IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 13TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 22ND KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 33537 of 2008(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ 1. BIMAL.V.R., AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.V.S.RAMACHANDRAN, VALIYAKKIL HOUSE, KANDANASSERY P.O., TRICHUR 680 102. 2. SANTHOSH.S, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.K.SADASIVAN, SANTHOSH BHAVAN, NETTAYAM P.O., POOYAPPALLY, KOLLAM 691537. 3. BIJU.K.THAMBAN, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.K.A.THAMBAN, KALLIDUMBIL HOUSE, ARUVAPPARA, MEKKAPPALA, ERNAKULAM 683 545. 4. SREEKUMAR.S, AGED 28, S/O.LATE SASIDHARAN PILLAI, SREEVILASAM, VALIYODE P.O., CHEPRA, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.UNNIKRISHNA MENON SRI.K.M.JAMALUDHEEN SMT.LATHA PRABHAKARAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND ANIMAL HUSBANDRY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, VELLANIKKARA P.O., TRISSUR REPRESENTED BY REGISTRAR. WPC NO.33537/08 -2- 4. THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE KERALA AGRICULTURE UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY VICE CHANCELLOR, THE KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, VELLANIKKARA.P.O., TRISSUR. 5. PRASANNA KUMARI.K, LAB ASSISTANT GRADE-I COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE, VELLAYANI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. R.K.MUHAMMED, PUMP OPERATOR MECHANICAL SUB-DIVISION, VELLANIKKARA, TRICHUR. 7. K.V.GOPINATHAN, PERMANENT LABOURER, UNIVERSITY LIVESTOCK FARM & FRDS, MANNUTHY P.O., TRICHUR. 8. LALUMON.G.P., CASUAL LABOURER, REGIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH STATION, KUMARAKOM, KOTTAYAM 686566. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.A.J.VARGHESE, SRI.RENJITH THAMPAN, SC FOR UNIVERSITY. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ============== W.P.(C) NO. 33537 OF 2008 (P) ==================== Dated this the 13th day of November, 2008 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Exts. P10, P12, P12(a) and P13. Petitioners also seek a declaration that the amendment effected to the recruitment rule by Ext.P10 for making appointments to the post of Farm Assistants Grade II in the 3rd respondent University by internal selection is null and void. 2. Ext.P1 was the recruitment rules for the post of Farm Assistant Grade II. That provided for filling up the vacancy by direct recruitment. It is stated that when Ext.P1 was in force, attempt was made by the University to fill up the post by appointing internal candidates. That was challenged before this Court and in WP(C) No.25378/05 and connected cases and this court disposed of the writ petitions by Ext.P5 judgment. In that judgment, submission of the University that appointment will be made in terms of the statute by direct recruitment was recorded. That judgment was rendered on 28/7/06. 3. Much later to this, by Ext.P10, the rules were amended and the amended method of filling up the post is by internal selection or by direct recruitment in the absence of candidates by internal selection. WPC 33537/08 :2 : Petitioners state that based on Ext.P10, the post was filled up by appointing internal candidates and the appointees are those mentioned in Exts. P12, P12(a) and P13. Counsel submits that Ext.P10 is illegal for the reason that the same runs counter to Ext.P5 judgment and the undertaking recorded therein. It is also contended that it is impermissible for the University to reserve the entire posts for internal candidates. It is also stated that in the judgment in OP 20020/97, this Court has held that the post cannot be filled up by appointing casual labourers and that despite this, casual labourers have been appointed as is seen from Ext.P13 list. 4. I am not in a position to accept the contentions raised by the counsel for the petitioners. University is well within its powers to frame recruitment rules and the same can be challenged only if the rules so framed by the University runs counter to the parent statute or if it is in violation of the fundamental rights of the candidates or if the same is arbitrary for any reason. Petitioner has no case that Ext.P10 amendment is in violation of the statute under which the University has been established. Petitioner is only an outsider, at best can only be a prospective candidate if the rule so provides and he cannot argue that rule is in violation of his fundamental rights. Similarly, it cannot be contended that the University has committed any arbitrariness by reserving the posts WPC 33537/08 :3 : for internal candidates and reservation of posts to internal candidates is nothing uncommon in service jurisprudence. 5. The contention of the counsel for the petitioners relying on Ext.P5 judgment and the undertaking recorded therein is also unsustainable. So long as Ext.P1 recruitment rules held the field, the University could not have filled up the post otherwise than in accordance with those rules. Once the rules were amended by Ext.P10, the University is well within its power in filling up the post in terms thereof. Therefore, Ext.P5 judgment, rendered when Ext.P1 rules were in force, does not advance the case of the petitioner any further. 6. In so far as the judgment in OP No.20020/97 is concerned, that was also rendered by this Court at the time when Ext.P1 was the prevailing recruitment rules. This rule obviously did not permit the University to fill up the post by internal candidates including casual labourers. Now that rules have been amended and internal selection is the method and as those in Ext.P13 were appointed subsequently, the judgment also does not help the petitioners. I do not find any merit in this writ petition. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp