IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 1ST NOVEMBER 2010 / 10TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 25595 of 2010(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. KURIAKOSE M.K.,S/O.KURIAKOSE, MATTAHTIL HOUSE, KANNARA P.O., CHALAMPADAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. SHENOJ P.Y., S/O.YAYAKKI, PALATHINGAL HOUSE, CHALAMPADAM, KOOTTALA P.O.,THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.SHARAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2. KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, VELLANIKARA P.O.,THRISSUR,REP.BY ITS REGISTRAR 680654 3. ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, BANANA RESEARCH STATION, KANNARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680652 ADV. SRI.K.P.MUJEEB, SC, KERALA AGRI UNIVER FOR R2 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.NISHA BOSE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.25595 of 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of November, 2010 JUDGMENT The case of the petitioners is that they were working under the third respondent for a long period, they having been engaged after conducting an interview by the officers of the second respondent. The petitioners were deputed for various types of work. It is also stated that the petitioners are the senior most persons working under the third respondent. However, they were not given any promotion or scale of pay considering their seniority and long service. It is stated that Exhibit P1 select list was prepared by the third respondent in consultation with the second respondent University. The petitioners were ranked as 31 and 47 in Exhibit P1 select list. According to the petitioners, no period was fixed for the currency of Exhibit P1 select list. More than 20 workers were absorbed for regular employment during the course of the last five years. It is further stated that the second respondent is "inviting persons" and making appointments according to their whims and fancies without WP(C) No.25595/2010 2 framing statutory procedure. 2. I.A.No.11790 of 2010 was filed by the petitioners to receive additional documents as Exhibits P3 to P5. Exhibit P5 is relied on to show that even in 2009, appointment was made from the select list. 3. A statement is filed on behalf of the respondents in which it is stated that Exhibit P1 is not a rank list, but only a communal rotation list prepared from the rank list. The select list was published on 30.1.2001 and the period for expiry of the list was fixed as three years, that is up to 29.1.2004. That period was extended up to 31.3.2007 as per the decision of the executive committee. Later the select list was cancelled as per the order dated 19.11.2007, following the decision of the executive committee on 15.10.2007. In the statement, it is also stated that the contention raised by the petitioners that the select list was not limited to any fixed period is not correct and it was valid up to only 31.3.2007. Appointments were made in the vacancies which arose up to 31.3.2007 and the list was cancelled. 4. As regards Exhibit P4, it is stated in the statement WP(C) No.25595/2010 3 that Exhibit P4 relates to an order of appointing casual labourers from the ranked list prepared by the Banana Research Station, Kannara which was approved by the establishment committee. In respect of Exhibit P5, it is stated that it is an order regularising the service of the casual labourers who were in service at the Banana Research Station, Kannara. Exhibit P5 has no connection with the selection of the casual labourers. 5. A reply affidavit is filed by the petitioners in which it is reiterated that the rank list was not cancelled and till recently, appointment orders were being issued from the said ranked list. In the reply affidavit, it is stated that the list was published on 30.1.2001 and the period was fixed as three years for its expiry. It is also stated that it was extended up to 31.3.2007. However, it is denied that the list was cancelled. 6. Exhibit R1 order dated 19.11.2007 passed by the Kerala Agricultural University is produced along with the statement filed on behalf of the respondents, which shows that the select list of casual labourers, the validity of which was extended up to 31.3.2007 as per the decision of the executive committee, was cancelled. WP(C) No.25595/2010 4 7. From Exhibit R1 and the facts stated in the statement filed on behalf of the respondents, it is clear that the select list is not in existence now. There is nothing to indicate that after 2007, any person was appointed from the select list which is referred to by the petitioners. Exhibits P4 and P5, evidently do not relate to Exhibit P1 or any select list on the basis of which Exhibit P1 was prepared. The petitioners therefore cannot have any grievance as raised in the Writ Petition. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the University is calling for applications for appointment of casual labourers and the petitioners also may be provided facility to apply for being engaged as casual labourers. If the petitioners are otherwise eligible for being considered for engaging as casual labourers, it is made clear that the dismissal of the Writ Petition will not stand in their way from applying. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN JUDGE csl