IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2009 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 24277 of 2009(D) -------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- R. RADHAKRISHNAN, S/O. S. RAGHAVAN, ASSISTANT ENGINEER (CIVIL), ENGINEERING UNIT, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, KARYAVATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY MR.M.V.THAMBAN, ADVOCATE. MR.R.REJI, ADVOCATE. MS.THARA THAMBAN, ADVOCATE. MR.V.K.SATHYANATHAN, ADVOCATE. RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. THE KERALA UNIVERSITY, REP. BY THE REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY CAMPUS, KARYAVATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR, CAMPUS ADMINISTRATION, KERALA UNIVERSITY, KARYAVATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY MR.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, SC, KERALA UTY. FOR R1 & R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.24277 OF 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of December, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is an allottee of quarters in the Kariavattom campus of the Kerala University. He is working as Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the Engineering Unit of the University, in the Kariavattom campus. He is mainly aggrieved by the direction to vacate the quarters as evident from Exhibit P10 communication. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he is physically handicapped with 40% disability and the official respondents require the presence of the petitioner in the campus itself and it is on this ground that the quarters was allotted to him. It is pointed out that there is no justification to direct him to vacate the quarters as he was granted the same on priority basis. Apart from the fact that he is physically handicapped, the job requires his presence for 24 hours in the campus and these are the two priority factors that enabled him to get the allotment of quarters. 3. In the statement filed by the respondents, it is pointed W.P.(C) No.24277/2009 2 out that the contention of the petitioner that he was allotted the quarters on priority basis is not correct. At the time of allotment of quarters, he was only a Work Superintendent and not an Assistant Engineer to give full charge of water supply in the Kariavattom campus. D-15 quarters was allotted to him with effect from 01.07.2002 on normal terms and conditions. Mainly it is contended that as per clause 10 of the University Order dated 11.12.1995, quarters shall not be allotted to those who have his own house within a radius of 15 kilometers from the Kariavattom campus. If an allottee is subsequently found to have received allotment withholding such information, action shall be taken to evict him and he shall also be liable for disciplinary action under the rules concerned. The petitioner owns a house within 10 Kms. from the University Campus. He himself had filed an affidavit on 10.02.2009 swearing that he owns a house within 15 Kms. radius from the University Campus at Kariavattom. He has also undertaken to vacate the quarters on or before 31st March, 2009. The memo was issued to him only because of the fact that he did not vacate the quarters. W.P.(C) No.24277/2009 3 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly relies upon Exhibits P6 and P8. As per Exhibit P8, the Registrar has recommended his continuance in the quarters. It is explained in paragraph 9 of the statement that the real facts were brought to the notice of the Vice Chancellor and the Vice Chancellor ordered to evict the petitioner, and subsequently the Registrar as per letter dated 11.08.2009 directed the 2nd respondent to permit the petitioner to continue in the quarters upto 31.08.2009 and to obtain the key from the petitioner on that day itself. 5. The question is whether the permission granted to the petitioner could be utilized by him to continue in the quarters ignoring relevant clauses in the allotment rules. The fact that the petitioner owns a house within 10 Kms. radius from the University Campus at Kariavattom has not been denied and is an admitted one. It appears that the petitioner has rented out the said building. In that view of the matter, there cannot be any dispute that the same disentitles the petitioner for continued occupation of quarters. It is a matter of common knowledge that several employees will be waiting in the queue for allotment of W.P.(C) No.24277/2009 4 quarters also. 6. Therefore, Exhibits P6 and P8 cannot confer any benefit on the petitioner for continuance without any time frame. The petitioner is liable to vacate the quarters in terms of the affidavit filed by him. Pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court, the petitioner has been continuing in the quarters. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner may be granted sufficient time, ie. atleast three months from today to vacate the quarters. This is opposed by the learned standing counsel for the University. It is submitted that the petitioner will have to vacate the quarters this month itself. Considering various circumstances pointed out by the petitioner that he may require time to get vacant possession of the house rented out, time is granted upto 31.01.2010 to vacate the quarters. This writ petition is dismissed subject to the above observations. No costs. T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE smp