IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 4TH APRIL 2008 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 32230 of 2005(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ GEETHA K., AGED 42 YEARS, W/O. PRAKASHAN, KOCHUVELI HOUSE, PATTANAKAD P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.A.SHAFIK RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, KOCHI-22 2. THE REGISTRAR, COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, COCHIN UNIVERSITY P.O., KOCHI-22. 3. MISS. SHOBHANA R., D/O. ROHINI AMMA, SHOBHA NILAYAM, UDYOGAMANDAL P.O, ELOOR, ERNAKULAM. (DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AS PER ORDER DT.4.8.2006 IN IA NO.7828/06) ADDL.R4. SRIKUMARAN ASARI.K. VENKULATHUKONAM, ASSAUVALAKOM,POWDIKONAM PO SREEKARYAM, TRIVANDRUM (ADDL.R4 IMPLEAADED AS PER ORDER DT.4.8.06 IN IA 7828/06) SRI.ASOK M.CHERIAN FOR R3 SRI.JOHNSON P.JOHN FOR R4 SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAI,SC,COCHIN UNIVERSITY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 32230/05 -2- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT.3.10.2005 EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RANKLIST OF SWEEPER CUM CLEANER DT.8.6.98 EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT.21.7.98 ISSUED BY R2 EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT.27.9.1999 SUBMITTED BEFORE R2 EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT.27.3.1998 EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT.24.6.1998 EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT.26.6.98 ISSUED BY R2 EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF THE RANK LIST OF PEONS DT.6.6.98 EXT.P9 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT.16.8.2005 IN OP 25074/99 OF THIS COURT EXT.P10TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE SYNDICATE MEETING HELD ON 17.4.99 EXT.P11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT.18.5.1999 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS EXT.R1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILED LIST SHOWING APPOINTMENTS MADE ACCORDING TO THE TURN OF ROTATION OF VARIOUS COMMUNITIES TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Writ Petition (C) No.32230 of 2005-J -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Judgment The petitioner was a candidate, who applied for appointment to the post of Sweeper-cum-Cleaner in the 1st respondent University, when applications were invited in 1994. She was included in Ext.P2 rank list published on 08.06.1998 as rank no.86. She belongs to Viswakarma community. As per the 100 point roster for reservation, point no.20 and 100 are reserved for Viswakarma community among other backward communities. Initially, 38 vacancies were filled up. The roster started from point no.57 and upto point no.94 was covered when those vacancies were filled up. Again a few vacancies arose and the last point in the roster reached when those vacancies were filled up was 124. As per the 100 point roster, the petitioner should have been considered for appointment at point no.100 or at any rate, at point no.120, i.e., point no.20 in the next cycle, as she was the second person eligible from the Viswakarma community for appointment. According to the petitioner, there was another Viswakarma candidate who was entitled for the first vacancy. So, she should have been accommodated in the second WPC 32230/05 2 vacancy. Since her claim was overlooked, she approached this court by filing OP No.25074/99. The said OP was disposed of by this court by Ext.P9 judgment, directing the university to consider her representation highlighting the aforementioned grievance. As per the direction of this court, the competent authority considered her representation and rejected the same by Ext.P1 order. Hence this Writ Petition, challenging Ext.P1 and seeking consequential reliefs. 2. The University has filed a counter affidavit in which it is pointed out that it is operating the roster, pooling all the class iv categories together. At the relevant time, there was a rank list for appointment to the post of peon also. So, appointments from the rank lists were being made as and when vacancies arose in the respective categories. For both the posts, one common roster was being operated. When the point reached at 100 and the first Viswakarma turn arose, the vacancy available was that of a Peon. So the Viswakarma candidate from the rank list of Peons was appointed and the Viswakarma turn was satisfied. When the 20th point in the next cycle arose, again the vacancy available was that of a Peon and so, the next Viswakarma candidate from the rank list of Peons was appointed, satisfying the Viswakarma turn. When appointments were made at roster points 100 and 20 in the next cycle, the WPC 32230/05 3 vacancy in the post of Sweeper-cum-Cleaner was not available and therefore, the petitioner could not be appointed, it is submitted. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit, challenging the above stand taken by the University. She reiterated that if the roster was applied properly, she would have been appointed under the Viswakarma quota. 3. Heard the learned counsel on both sides. Since the roster started from point no.57 and ended at point no.124, there were only two Viswakarma turns. Those turns were satisfied by appointing persons from the rank list of Peons. The petitioner happened to be denied appointment because of the operation of the combined roster which is permissible as per S.31(11) of the Cochin University of Science and Technology Act, 1986. In the result, I find nothing wrong with Ext.P1 and accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. 04.04.2008 K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR,JUDGE sta WPC 32230/05 4