IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2009 / 1ST SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 5405 of 2009(U) ------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. BEENA.E, AGED 41 YEARS, D/O.RAMANAN.A, AISWARIA, MELOOR P.O., THALASSERY. 2. PRAMEELAKUMARI.K.P., POOVALI HOUSE, NEAR SEMINARY, DHARMADAM, THALASSERY. 3. SREELATHA. M, K.V.HOUSE, PERUNTHATTIL, THALASSERY. 4. MANOHARAN, KUZHUMIAL POIL HOUSE, KODIYERI, PARAL, THALASSERY. 5. PREMNATH, SREESAILAM, SANKARA NELLUR, KOOTHUPARAMBA. 6. RAJEEVAN, PONNIATHU PARAMBU HOUSE, PONNIUM WEST, THALASSERY. 7. SOMASUNDARAM V.K., AGED 47 YEARS, S/O. LATE P.T.KRISHNAN, NAVADEEPAM HOUSE, MELUR POST, PALAYAD, THALASSERY. BY ADV. MR.C.V.MANUVILSAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. KANNUR UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, KANNUR UNIVERSITY, KANNUR. 2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, KANNUR UNIVERSITY, KANNUR. R1 & R2 BY MR.M.SASEENDRAN,SC,KANNUR UNIVERSITY. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/07/2009, ALONG WITH W.P.(C). NO.5574 OF 2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) Nos.5405/2009-U & 5574/2009-N - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2009. JUDGMENT These writ petitions are filed by the petitioners seeking for regularisation in service of the Kannur University based on their continuance on daily wages for a long period. It appears from the facts stated in the writ petitions that the tenure of the various petitioners commenced as early as in the year 1997. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order passed by the University which is produced as Exts.P3 and P5 in the respective writ petitions, whereby the request of the petitioners for regularisation was rejected by the Syndicate. The request was rejected for the reason that the Kannur University Statutes alone will prevail in the matter. 2. Heard learned Standing Counsel for the University. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that way back in the year 2001 the then Syndicate had passed a resolution to regularise 12 employees who were appointed on contract basis which was the subject matter of O.P.No.25441/2000 (Ext.P4 in W.P.(C) wpc 5405 & 5574/2009 2 No.5405/2009). It is therefore submitted that there is nothing to divide between these petitioners and the beneficiaries of the said resolution. All of them were being treated equally by the University and therefore the same treatment ought to have been meted out to the petitioners herein also. It is submitted that on the well known doctrines of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation also, the petitioners have a right to seek regularisation in the service of the University. It is submitted that in spite of the judgment rendered by this court, viz. Ext.P2, no reasoned order has been passed by the University and the respective claims of the petitioners have not been adverted to at all while rejecting the representation as per Ext.P3. Interalia, it is contended that the Calicut University has already resolved that 50% of the appointment to the post of Peon/watchman be given to those included in the updated list of C.L.R. workers. Two of the petitioners are physically handicapped also. 4. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the University submitted that the University had been taking steps way back from 1999 onwards to have a regular appointment in various cadres including last grade service. It is submitted that the petitioners have been continuing for long, but only on casual/temporary basis and that the said appointment will not confer wpc 5405 & 5574/2009 3 them any right as such for regularisation. It is also submitted that the University has been taking steps to complete the selection process and the matter has reached the final stage, as there is a direction issued by this court in the judgment in W.P.(C) No.14596/2009, to complete the selection process and to publish the list within a period of one month. 5. The contention raised by the petitioners substantially is that the petitioners have been appointed by the University. They are trying for a number of years for regularisation in service and the long continuance in the service of the University, even on daily wage basis, ought to have been reckoned for granting regularisation. It is submitted that there is nothing to distinguish between persons similarly situated, who have been regularised. Going by the judgment Ext.P4, only 12 persons who were appointed on contract basis, were regularised by the University. Presently, the stand taken by the University is that in the light of the University Statutes which may prevail in the matter, the Syndicate is not agreeable to regularise the service of the persons like the petitioners. It cannot be said that the said reason is unreasonable. Regular appointment in the service of the University can be made only under the provisions that govern the procedure for selection contained in University Statutes and regulations. In that view wpc 5405 & 5574/2009 4 of the matter, persons like the petitioners who were benefited by a temporary/casual employment, cannot claim benefit of regularisation. Persons who are remaining outside and seeking employment, will have to be given an opportunity by the University while making any regular appointment which alone will satisfy the requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the petitioners cannot compel the University to grant regularisation merely because of the temporary nature of service that was offered to them, even though for a long number of years. In that view of the matter and as settled by various decisions of this Court and of the Apex Court that adhoc service or temporary nature of appointment will not confer any right for regularisation, the claim raised by the petitioners cannot be accepted. True that by Ext.P4 judgment, some of the contract employees were benefited. But still, the same cannot be taken as a yardstick in the light of the various provisions of the University Statutes. If at all it can be argued that the benefit which was given to some others, was not given to the petitioners, the principles that are enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution, cannot be applied to the petitioners since it is well settled that even a wrong order passed in respect of some other persons cannot apply to persons like the petitioners to claim regularisation in wpc 5405 & 5574/2009 5 service. In that view of the matter, the writ petitions fail and they are accordingly dismissed. But it is made clear that if there is need for temporary engagement, petitioners will be duly considered, and the dismissal of the writ petitions will not stand in the way of the same. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/