IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2011 / 26TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 11698 of 2007(P) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. SHYAMALA R,PANAVOORTHASTA VEEDU, N.C.C. ROAD,PEROORKADA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. BABU R,THEKKEPARAMBIL VEEDU, VENPALAVATTOM,ANAYARA P.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. RAVI. K, NO.220,K.K.LANE,THIRUMALA P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. GIRIJA S,THOTTINKARA MUDIMBIL VEEDU, PUNCHAKKARI,THIRUVALLOM P.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. GIRIJA B,ATTUVARAMBIL KATTACKAL VEEDU, JAGATHY,THYCAUD P.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. NABEESA BEEVI,NAGALAYAM,KUZHIMVILA, KOVALAM P.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 7. ANILKUMAR K,EDAPPALLIMADOM PUTHOOR P.O. 8. R.MOHANAN NAIR,KOCHU VEEDU, PANGETTUKONAM,MANCHAVILAKOM P.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 9. G.LEVI,PUTHVAL CHARUVILA MEKKEY VEEDU, VIRALY,UTEHAKKADA P.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 10. M.VIJAYAN,THADATHURIKATHU VEEDU, PALLIVETTU,ARYANAD P.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 11. SUGATHAN S,KAMALAYAM,PINANGOTTUKUZHI, RUSSELPURAM P.O,BALARAPURAM. Kss ..2/- ..2.... WPC.NO.11698/2007 P 12. M.SASIDHARAN,KADAYARA VEEDU,KAZHIVOOR PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 13. JAYANTHI S,S.S.MANDIRAM,THUNDATHIL P.O, (VIA)KARIYAVATTOM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 14. K.AMMINI,POYICKAL HOUSE,MALAMURY, PERUMBAVOOR P.O,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 15. THANKAM B,SHAINI BHAVAN, VADAKKEMALANCHARAVU,RUSSELPURAM P.O, BALARAMAPURAM. 16. R.DEVADAS,NJARAVILA VEEDU, RUSSELPURAM P.O,BALARAMAPURAM. 17. E.RAMESAN,KALLUVEETAMKUZHI VEEDU, KUZHUVILAM P.O,ATTINAGAL. 18. NIRMALA R,MULLAVILA VEEDU, SRI CHITRA COTTAGE'S LANE,KUMARAPURAM, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O,TRIVANDRUM. 19. RAMALEKSHMI,TC 23/1033,SISIRAM, VALIYASALA,THYCAUD P.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 20. MERY K.JOSE,POWATHEL HOUSE, NALACHIRA P.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 21. P.K.RAJAMMA,THADATHIL KIZHAKKETHIL VEEDU,MUDIYOOR,KOLLAM. 22. CRISTAL LEELA K,VERATUPOTTA ROBI VILASOM VATTAVILA P.O,PARASSALA. 23. MARIYA PRASANNA G.L,JOSE PRAKASH HOUSE, LOURDHPURAM,KANJIRAMKULAM P.O. 24. CELINE M,D.M MANIDIRAM,BHAU LANE, PEROORKADA P.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 25. INDIRA A,ROHINI NIVAS,PERINGAMALA, KALLIYOOR P.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. Kss ..3/- ..3... WPC.NO.11698/2007 P 26. JALAJAKUMAR B,VIMALA MANDIRAM, MANGALACKAL STREET,KATTAKKADA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 27. PADMINI V,KIZHAKKUMKARA PUTHENVEEDU, PLAVARAPACHA. BY ADVS. SRI.VELLAYANI SUNDARA RAJU, SMT.P.MEENAKUMARI. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE UNNIVERSITY OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR,KERALA UNIVERSITY BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION (B),GOVERNMENT SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 & R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. RANI DIOTHIMA R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/03/2011 ALONG WITH WPC NO. 10760 OF 2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.11698/2007 P APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF NOTIFICATION OF 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 15/05/1992. P2: COPY OF RANK LIST PUBLISIHED BY 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. NIL. P3: COPY OF JUDGMENT IN O.P.NO.1935 OF 2001 DTD. 6/3/2002. P4: COPY OF LETTER OF 2ND RESPONDENT VIDE NO.13255/2002 DTD. 21/05/02 TO 3RD RESPONDENT. P5: COPY OF LETTER OF 3RD RESPONDENT VIDE NO.18061/B3/2001/H.EDN. DTD. 5/09/02. P6: COPY OF LETTER NO.AD.A11.1.021480/2005 DTD. 19/11/05 TO 3RD RESPONDENT. P7: COYP OF THE ANSWEROF THEN HON'BLE EDN.MINISTER IN THE KERALA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY ON 26/02/2003 ON THE VACANCY POSTITION OF PEONS OF 2ND RESPONDENT. P8: COPY OF LETTER OF 1ST RESPONDENT TO 2ND RESPONDENT VIDE NO.21888/B2/05/H.EDN. DTD. 8/03/07. P9: COPY OF LETTER OF 1ST RESPONDENT TO 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 14/03/2007. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J. ------------------------------------- W.P.(C)Nos.10760 & 11698 Of 2007 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 17th DAY OF MARCH, 2011 J U D G M E N T Both these Writ Petitions concern a common issue and therefore they are being disposed of together. 2. The petitioners in both the Writ Petitions approached this Court seeking for directions to appoint them as Class IV employees under the University of Kerala against existing vacancies before the expiry of the revalidated select list. 3. These litigations have got a chequered history. The notification was issued on 15.5.1992 by the University inviting applications from among persons having qualifications to read and write for appointment as Class IV employees. Exhibit P1 produced in W.P.(C)No.10760/07 is the notification. Thereafter the selection process continued and finally a ranked list was published on 30.6.1999 and Exhibit P2 therein is the ranked list. Out of 125 persons included therein only 25 persons were initially appointed. It appears that various persons included in the ranked list had approached this Court seeking for direction to the W.P.(C)Nos.10760 & 11698/07 -2- University to appoint them and Exhibit P3 is the judgment in O.P.No.1935/2001. Even thereafter the University did not take any steps in the matter; but temporary engagement continued. Finally, the University revalidated the ranked list as per Exhibit P8 (produced in W.P.(C)No.10760/07) on 12.5.2005 for a period of two years from 12.5.2005. It is the case of the petitioners that during the period of validity of the ranked list, and during the extended period number of vacancies were there to be filled up and the the sanctioned strength in the University was 341 as against which only 170 persons were working. After revalidation, 50 more were appointed. The petitioners approached the University by filing various representations and in spite of the same, no further action was taken in the matter. The University requested the Government to sanction the filling up of further vacancies as per Exhibit P10. This Court as per Exhibit P11 judgment issued direction to take a decision. By Exhibit P14 produced in W.P.(C)No.10760/07, the Government informed the University that the Government is not in a position to agree to the request to appoint Class IV employees from the revalidated list. Therefore, obviously, the appointment was delayed for want W.P.(C)Nos.10760 & 11698/07 -3- of concurrence from the Government. 4. A detailed interim order was passed by this Court on 13.4.2007 and after considering various aspects including the number of sanctioned posts and this Court directed that the respondent University will be free to appoint the petitioners before the expiry of the revalidated rank list and the fact that the impugned orders have been passed will not stand in the way of their being appointed. But, it was made clear that the appointment will be purely provisional. 5. Exhibit P16 produced in W.P.(C)No.10760/07 is the proceedings by the University whereby 44 more vacancies were filled up. Of course the same is subject to the final outcome of the Writ Petition. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that as the sanctioned post of Class IV employees was 341 and there were more than 170 vacancies existing, there was no valid reason for denying appointment to the petitioners. It is further pointed out that as far as filling up of sanctioned posts are concerned prior concurrence of the Government is not required especially in the light of the decision reported in Shalini Rachel W.P.(C)Nos.10760 & 11698/07 -4- v. Manager, Christian College ( 2007 (3) KLT 355). Of course, therein the issue was considered in respect of filling up of posts in an aided College. But this Court was of the view that for filling up the posts sanctioned by the University on the basis of work load or staff pattern, no prior permission from Government is required. 7. It appears that the Government required prior concurrence only because of the fact that at a later stage, the financial burden will be on the Government itself. Regarding this aspect, it is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel for the University that the salary of the appointees are being made from the University fund itself and the University will bear the financial burden for paying the salary and other allowances to the parties concerned. They are not requiring any funds from the Government for paying salary to the said employees, it is submitted. 8. The learned Government Pleader was also directed to get instructions in the matter. It is submitted by the learned Government Pleader that Government is of the view that financial burden should not be placed on the Government. W.P.(C)Nos.10760 & 11698/07 -5- 9. Evidently, this is a case where the ranked list was initially for a particular period which was revalidated by the Syndicate and during this period petitioners approached this Court and in terms of the interim order passed by this Court, they have been appointed. Therefore, it cannot be said that appointments have not been validly made to vacancies in sanctioned post. 10. In that view of the matter, the petitioners are entitled for regularisation in service. Therefore, even though the appointments made as per Exhibit P16 are provisional as the petitioners had acquired a right to be considered against vacancies then existing, it is made clear that appointments will be treated as regular recognising the right of the petitioners for appointment. It is declared that they will be entitled for all consequential monetary benefits flowing therefrom. In the light of the submission by the learned Standing Counsel for the University, the University will bear the financial burden and the monetary benefits will be paid from the University funds alone and the Government will not be called upon to bear the financial burden also. W.P.(C)Nos.10760 & 11698/07 -6- The Writ Petitions are thus allowed. Appropriate orders shall be issued by the University regularising the appointment of the petitioners and the arrears due to the petitioners and similarly placed persons will be disbursed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. No costs. Sd/-( T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) dsn