IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 18TH JULY 2008 / 27TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 21686 of 2008(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- SANTHOSHKUMAR.K., TEMPORARY ASSISTANT UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, RESIDING AT LEKSHMI BHAVAN MUTHUKULAM NORTH, CHOOLATHERUVU PO., ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR 2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY ADV. SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, SC, KERALA UNIVERSITY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. ............................................................................ W.P.(C) No. 21686 OF 2008 ............................................................................ Dated this the 18th July, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner states that he is a a physically handicapped person having visual impairment. He states that he is a cancer patient too. It is also stated that he has to undergo Chemotherapy and Radiation in every six months for cancer treatment, the expense for which would come to about Rs. 25,000/-. 2. The petitioner has Bachelor's Degree in Statistics and Post Graduate Degree in Malayalam. He was originally appointed from Employment Exchange as provisional Assistant in the University, the second respondent, for six months from 22.06.2005 to 19.12.2005. Thereafter he was engaged on daily wages for 129 days from 22.12.2005 to 29.04.2006. When service of the petitioner was terminated he submitted Ext. P5 representation dated 02.06.2006 to the Vice Chancellor of the University. Ext. P5 representation was placed before the Syndicate Meeting held on 26.10.2006. It was resolved in the meeting of the Syndicate to appoint the petitioner as temporary Assistant on daily wages. The decision of the Syndicate Meeting is on record as Ext.P6. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the Syndicate had taken two decisions in item Nos. 85 and 86. Item No.85 relates to appointment of provisional Assistants and re-employment of provisional employees on daily wages who were appointed through Employment Exchange. In Item No.85, it was resolved to engage the Provisional Assistants then in service and who were willing to continue to work as W.P.(C) No. 21686 OF 2008 2 Provisional Assistants on daily wages till alternate arrangements are made. Item No.86 relates to the request of the petitioner. Taking into account the fact that the petitioner is a cancer patient and also taking into account the fact that he was previously employed in the University as provisional Assistant, it was resolved that the request of the petitioner to appoint him as a temporary Assistant on daily wages in the University be agreed to. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that there is a substantial difference between resolution Nos.85 and 86. As per Resolution No.85, it was agreed to engage provisional Assistants then in service on daily wages till alternate arrangements are made, while in Resolution No.86 , it was agreed to appoint the petitioner on daily wages as temporary Assistant. There is no such restriction or reservation as in the case of Resolution No.85. It is stated that the service of the petitioner was terminated with effect from 13.06.2008 along with other provisional Assistants, who were appointed on daily wages as per Resolution No.85 in Ext. P6. Aggrieved by the action of the University, the petitioner submitted Ext. P8 representation dated 16.06.2008 to the Vice Chancellor pointing out his grievances and requesting that appropriate orders may be issued to allow the petitioner to continue to work as temporary Assistant in the University. Ext. P8 representation is pending disposal. 4. The reliefs prayed for in the Writ Petition are the following: a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order, directing the respondents to re-engage the petitioner as Temporary Assistant. b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the 2nd respondent to take up and dispose of Exhibits P-7 and P-8, and c) Be further pleased to issue such other interim orders as are warranted on the facts and circumstances of the case.” W.P.(C) No. 21686 OF 2008 3 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would be satisfied for the present if a direction is issued to the second respondent to consider and dispose of Ext. P8 representation. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the University submitted that the second respondent will consider and dispose of Ext. P8 representation at the earliest. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the second respondent, the Vice Chancellor, University of Kerala to consider and dispose of Ext. P8 representation as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of one month from today, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. The petitioner would be entitled to put forward his grievances before the second respondent and pray for a sympathetic consideration of the case. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE. lk W.P.(C) No. 21686 OF 2008 4