IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 1ST AUGUST 2011 / 10TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 21807 of 2010(A) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- S.P.R.THAMPI, SECURITY GUARD, COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, KALAMASSERY, COCHIN-22, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.ANTONY M.AMBAT RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, KALAMASSERY, REP. BY ITS VICE CHANCELLOR, COCHIN-22, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE REGISTRAR, COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, KALAMASSERY, COCHIN-22, ERNAKULAM. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAI,SC,COCHIN UNIVERSITY R3 BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.A.J.VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.21807/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE UNIVERSITY ORDER NO.U.O.NO.AD.A3/22274/80 DATED 17/7/1981 P2 COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 03/06/2002 P3 COPY OF THE REMINDER DATED 05/07/2003 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. P4 COPY OF THE SSLC PASS CERTIFICATE P5 COPY OF THE EQUATION CERTIFICATE DATED 30TH APRIL 1991 P6 COPY OF THE ADMIT CARD DATED 27/07/1997 OF SELECTION TEST FOR RECRUITMENT TO THE POST OF ASST.GRADE II P7 COPY OF THE MEMO NO.AD.A2/156/76 (A)/VOL.II(P) DATED 06/02/2004 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY. P8 COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 27/9/2005 P9 COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 20/2/2006 P10 COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 06/06/2006 P11(A) COPY OF THE INTERVIEW CARD DATED 06/11/2006. P11(B) COPY OF THE INTERVIEW CARD DATED 16/01/2007. P11(C) COPY OF THE INTERVIEW CARD DATED 31/07/2007. P11(D) COPY OF THE INTERVIEW CARD DATED 30/11/2007. P11(E) COPY OF THE INTERVIEW CARD DATED 18/09/2008. P12 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C)NO.32299/06 DATED 04/04/2007. P13(A) COPY OF THE REPLY FROM THE CHIEF MINISTER'S OFFICE DATED 01/09/2008. P13(B) COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 02/08/2008 FROM THE UNIVERSITY. P14(A) COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION RECEIVED FROM THE CHIEF MINISTER'S OFFICE. P14(B) COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION AND RANKED LIST DATED 14/10/2008 PUBLISED BY THE UNIVERSITY BUT ISSUED BY THE CHIEF MINISTER'S OFFICE. P15(A) COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 29/11/2008 UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER 2/- -2- WP(C)NO.21807/2010 P15(B) COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16/12/2008 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY. P16 COPY OF THE GRADATION LIST (FINAL) DATED 19/02/2004 OF THE SECURITY STAFF. P17(A) COPY OF THE ORDER OF INTERIM STAY DATED 24/10/2008 IN I.A.NO.13111/2008 IN WP(C)NO.29686/2008 P17(B) COPY OF THE EXTENSION ORDER OF INTERIM STAY DATED 02/12/2008 IN WP(C) NO.29686/2008 P18 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18TH MAY 2010. P19(A) COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 24/05/2010 ATTACHED WITH EXT.P-18 ORDER ADDRESSED TO THE UNIVERSITY P19(B) COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD DATED 26/05/10 P20 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 24/05/2010 SUBMITTED TO THE UNIVERSITY P21 COPY OF THE UNIVERSITY ORDER NO.AD.GI/22274/2009 DATED 13/04/2010. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO.JUDGE sts T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.21807 of 2010-A - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 1st day of August, 2011. JUDGMENT The petitioner's grievance in this writ petition are many fold. The main relief sought for is to direct the respondents to implement the rank list Ext.P14(b) in the case of the petitioner within a time frame at any rate, before 14.10.2010, the date of expiry of the rank list. The further relief sought is to grant promotion to the petitioner as Sergeant with retrospective effect from 30.5.2002, the date of occurrence of the first vacancy. 2. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner was appointed after this Court passed an interim order on 14.10.2010. As of now he has retired from service on 31.3.2011. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that three vacancies to the post of Sergeant had occurred, the first one was in 2002, the second one in 2003 and the third one was in 2006. The petitioner was functioning as a Security Guard under the University and the post of Sergeant is a higher post. The University issued a circular dated 27.9.2005 inviting applications from Security Guards in the University to hold the post of Sergeant. It appears that there was some delay in the matter and the wpc 21807/2010 2 petitioner was also filing representations, after submitting the application as per Ext.P2. 4. Ext.P7 is a communication issued to the petitioner asking him to wait till the Syndicate takes a decision. Thereafter, the Registrar issued a fresh circular as per Ext.P10 dated 6.6.2006 inviting applications again and the petitioner submitted his application and called for an interview. The interview cards have been produced as Exts.P11(a) and P11(b). Ext.P12 is the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No.32299/2006 filed at the instance of some other candidates. According to the petitioner, he finally approached the Public Grievance Cell of the Honourable Chief Minister and thereafter the copy of the rank list was furnished to him. The same is produced as Ext.P14(b). In Ext.P14(b) the petitioner is serial No.2. Since no further actions were taken to appoint him, this writ petition was filed. 5. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since there was undue delay in the selection and appointment of the petitioner, the petitioner has suffered much and therefore the appointment has to be effected on a retrospective basis from the year 2002. It is submitted that the petitioner or any other candidates are not responsible for the delay and the University itself was dragging the matter. It is therefore submitted that as wpc 21807/2010 3 the petitioner was denied the appointment from an early date, normally the University is bound to consider his request and should have appointed him from 2002. My attention was drawn to the judgment of this Court in W.P. (C) No.29686/2008 filed by two other persons claiming appointment. Therein, the petitioner herein is arrayed as sixth respondent. The petitioners in that case were also working as Security Guards and were claiming appointments in respect of the vacancies which arose in 2002 and 2003. A reading of the judgment shows that the petitioners therein were aggrieved by the selection of respondents 4, 5 and 6 in the said writ petition. 7. After considering various aspects, this Court recorded the fact that the sixth respondent (petitioner herein) was appointed in one vacancy and directed filling up of the remaining two vacancies by promoting the petitioners therein. It is thus the case of the petitioner that all along the University was dragging the matter and the petitioner shall not be denied the rightful claim for promotion. 8. Learned Standing Counsel for the University submitted that the selection was delayed because of various aspects including the non availability of a Syndicate member from Scheduled Caste, to be included in the Selection Committee. My attention was invited to Ext.P12 judgment, wherein after noticing the fact that a Scheduled Caste member is available, wpc 21807/2010 4 this Court directed completion of the proceedings. It is further pointed out that only because of various circumstances including the pendency of various cases, the proceedings were delayed and there is no culpable delay in the matter. 9. Evidently, going by the judgment in W.P.(C) No.29686/2008 the direction was to appoint the petitioners therein in the remaining vacancies. Therein no direction has been issued to appoint them from any anterior date. It appears that the fifth respondent who was working as Sergeant, retired from service and after that, the petitioner was appointed. Even though learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the University should be directed to appoint him on a retrospective basis and disburse all monetary benefits, in the light of the fact that the selection process has never taken place either in 2002 or in 2003 and was held up for various reasons, as evident from Ext.P12 judgment, it cannot be said that there is any culpable delay on the part of the University in completing the process of appointment. Finally, he was appointed by Ext.P21 order with effect from 1.4.2010 and he retired from service on 31.3.2011. 10. Actually the appointment was preceded by a selection, in terms of the rules. Therefore, even though the petitioner was included in the rank list as rank No.2, it cannot be said that the petitioner's right was curtailed wpc 21807/2010 5 deliberately by the University by dragging the appointment. 11. Even going by the directions issued in the judgment in W.P.(C) No.29686/2008, there is no direction to grant retrospective promotion to the petitioners therein and as rightly pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel, the petitioner cannot be granted such a relief in this writ petition as he was also a party to the said judgment. 12. I find no reason to grant the reliefs as prayed for, in the light of the circumstances pointed out above. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. However, it is made clear that the dismissal of the writ petition will not stand in the way of the petitioner submitting any option statement to get the benefits legally due to him and consequent on the appointment. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/