IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN TUESDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2009 / 17TH CHAITHRA 1931 WA.No. 1717 of 2008() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.32230/2005 Dated 04/04/2008 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER: ------------------------- GEETHA.K., AGED 48 YEARS, W/O.PRAKASHAN, KOCHEUVELI HOUSE, PATTANAKKAD P.O. CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DIST. BY ADV. SRI.M.A.SHAFIK RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: --------------------------- 1. THE COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, KOCHI-22. 2. THE REGISTRAR, CUSAT, COCHIN UNIVERSITY POST, KOCHI-22. 3. SRI.KUMARAN ASARI, VENKULATHUKONAN, ASSAUVALOHAM, POWDIKONAM P.O., SREEKARYAM, TRIVANDRUM. ADV. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAI,SC,COCHI U FOR R1,2 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/04/2009, THE COURT ON 07/04/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.A.No.1717 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th April, 2009 JUDGMENT Raman, J. Appellant is the petitioner. She was an aspirant for the post of sweeper-cum-cleaner in the Cochin University of Science & Technology claiming as a Viswakarma community. She was the 86th in the rank list, Exhibit P2 and 2nd in the rank list in the community list. According to the petitioner, she ought to have been appointed on the 100th turn in the roster, but the third respondent was given appointment to the post of peon of that community. The stand of the University was that in the absence of any vacancy for the post of sweeper-cum- cleaner at the time when 100th turn came to be operated, it was given to a peon. Therefore, the question that arose for consideration is as to whether while appointing the third respondent as peon on 12.5.1999, there was any vacancy for the post of sweeper-cum-cleaner. If there was a vacancy for the post of sweeper-cum-cleaner on the date when appointment order was issued to the third respondent, WA.1717/08 2 necessarily, it should go to the petitioner and appointment to the third respondent could not have been made. In this connection, according to the appellant, the Syndicate in its meeting held on 17.4.1999 has resolved to create 6 more posts of sweeper-cum-cleaner. Therefore, by the time the appointment order was issued to the third respondent on 12.5.1999, there was a vacancy of sweeper-cum-cleaner. This is answered by the University in paragraph 7 of their counter affidavit, which reads as follows: “It is true that the Syndicate at its meeting held on 17.4.1999 created 9 posts of Peon and 6 posts of Sweeper cum Cleaner. The date of effect of the creation of those posts is not mentioned in the University order. The Syndicate had also resolved to authorize the Vice Chancellor to initiate steps to fill up the posts as and when necessary. When the various Departments/Schools of the University requested for additional Sweepers cum Cleaners a proposal was placed before the Syndicate for converting a few posts of Peon as that of Sweeper cum Cleaner. That proposal was declined by the Syndicate at its meeting WA.1717/08 3 on 19.6.1999 as per item No.406.36. Orders for filling up the vacancy were received in the section only in the first week of July, 1999 and memos were sent to the candidates on 8.7.1999.” 2. Actually on 17.4.1999, besides the 6 posts of sweeper- cum-cleaner, 9 posts of peon were created and both posts carry the same scale of pay. It is the stand of the University that as per the Syndicate decision dated 23.10.1981, when vacancies had to be filled up, which occurred simultaneously in distinct posts within a category, the post carrying higher scale of pay will be filled up first. Among the posts carry identical scales of pay, the posts will be filled in alphabetical order of the title of the posts. Therefore, on 17.4.1999, if additional post is created, even assuming that the date is to be taken is correct, then only the vacancy of peon has to be filled up first, since both the posts carry the same scale of pay and alphabetically it is the post of peon that has to be filled up first. 3. In the above factual situation, even if the date, 17.4.1999 is taken as the date on which new posts are created, WA.1717/08 4 the appellant could not have any right to be appointed over the third respondent, since alphabetically appointment to the post of peon has to be done first. 4. Coming to the next question as to whether the roster of peon and sweeper-cum-cleaner can be combined, the records produced in the case would show that the University had been following the same method of maintaining a combined roster as sanctioned under Section 31 of the Cochin University Act. In the result, we find no merit in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed. P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE vgs.