IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 18TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 27TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 4684 of 2009(G) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. K.K. PRABHA, S/O. KUNJAN, CASUAL LABOUR, REGIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH STATION, KUMARAKAM, KOTTAYAM. RESIDING AT KANNANKERIYIL HOUSE, KUMARAKOM.P.O, KOTTAYAM. 2. K.C. ANIL KUMAR, S/O. CHANDRAN, CASUAL LABOUR, REGIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH STATION, KUMARAKAM, KOTTAYAM. RESIDING AT KOLLACHERIYIL HOUSE, KUMARAKAM NORTH.P.O, KOTTAYAM. 3. K.T. REJIMON, S/O. THANKAPPAN, CASUAL LABOUR, REGIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH STATION, KUMARAKAM, KOTTAYAM. RESIDING AT KARUKAPARAMBIL, CHEEPUNGAL.P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 4. T.R. GEORGEKUTTY, S/O. ROCKERY, CASUAL LABOUR, REGIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH STATION, KUMARAKAM, KOTTAYAM. RESIDING AT THAZHACHAYIL, KUMARAKOM.P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY SMT.SUMATHI DANDAPANI (SR. ADVOCATE) BY ADV. MR.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. C.K. ABDUL SALAM, FARM ASSISTANT (VETY.) GR.II, CATTLE BREEDING FARM, THUMURMUZHI, CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR. W.P.(C) NO.4684/2009 2 C.K.ABDUL SALAM, FARM ASSISTANT (VETY), GR.II, CATTLE BREEDING FARM, THUMBURMUZHI, CHALAKKUDY, THRISSUR R1 BY MR.K.P.MUJEEB,SC,KERALA AGRL.UTY R2 BY ADV. MR.V.A.MUHAMMED THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/09/2009 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.4684/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE ORER NO.ACAD (3) DTD. 2.10.06 ISSUED BY THE DEAN OF THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONERS. P2:- COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF SRO 543/1993 REFERRED TO IN THE WRIT PETITION . P3:- COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.G.A.B.1/36894/2007 DTD. 27.2.08 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. P4:- COPY OF THE RANK LIST OF CANDIDATES FOR THE POST OF FARM ASSISTANT (VETY0 GRADE II, FROM CLASS III EMPLOYEES ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. P4(a):- COPY OF THE RANK LIST OF CANDIDATES FOR THE POST OF FARM ASSISTANT (VETY) GRADE II, FROM PERMANENT LABOURS ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. P4(b):- COPY OF THE RANK LIST OF CANDIDATES FOR THE POST OF FARM ASSISTANT (VETY), GRADE II, FROM CASUAL LABOURS ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. P5:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 16.12.08 SUBMITTED BY THE IST PETITIONER TO THE IST RESPONDENT THROUGH PROPER CHANNEL. P6:- COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DTD. 23.12.08 ANNEXED WITH EXT.P5 TO THE IST RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY. P7:- COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DTD. 3.2.09 ISSUED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P8:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 3.2.09 REGULARIZING THE SERVICE OF THE CASUAL LABOURS INCLUDING THE PETITIONERS. P9:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 3.11.08 RENDERED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WP.(C) NO.31084/2008. P10:- COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE IST RESPONDENT DTD. 30.12.08 VIDE NO.GA/AF2/15247/2007 DTD. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS R2(a):- COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE ESTATE OFFICER DTD.26.2.04. R2(b):- COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE IST RESPONDENT DTD. 6.3.93. R2(c):- COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DTD. 8.12.99. W.P.(C) NO.4684/2009 R2(d):- COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER DTD. 23.4.07. R2(e):- COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE UNIVERSITY DTD. 4.7.08. R2(f):- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WPC. 31084/08 DTD.3.11.08. R2(g):- COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE PETITIONER DTD. 18.11.08. R2(h):- COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION OF THE UNIVERSITY DTD. 24.10.07. TRUE COPY P.A.TO JUDGE tss ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- W.P.(C).No.4684 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 18th day of September, 2009. JUDGMENT Prayer sought for in this writ petition is to quash Ext.P7 order issued by the first respondent appointing the 2nd respondent as Farm Assistant (Vety.) Gr.II . Petitioners submit that from 15.4.1977, they were engaged as casual labourers at the Regional Agricultural Research Station, Kumarakam of the first respondent University. While continuing there, in November, 2005 they were all deputed for training as Livestock Assistant for a period of one year. In Ext.P1 the petitioners' names figure at Sl.Nos.51,37,8 and 47. It is stated that they have completed the training successfully. 2. Ext.P2 is the Kerala Agricultural University First Statues prescribing qualifications for posts including that of Farm Assistant (Vety.) Grd.II. As per Ext.P2, the post is to be filled up by direct recruitment from among those who have passed SSLC or its equivalent and have completed the Livestock Assistant WP(c).No.4684/09 2 training course conducted by the first respondent University or its equivalent qualification. Ext.P3 is a circular issued by the University, inviting applications for the post of Farm Assistants(Vety.) Grd.II from the class III and class IV permanent employees and casual employees of the University having the qualifications prescribed in Ext.P2. 3. Petitioners' submit that in response to Ext.P3 they applied for the post and it would appear that the 2nd respondent also had submitted his application. They were all called for a written test and were successful. Ranked lists were published for different categories of eligible employees mentioned in Ext.P3 and referring to Ext.P4(d) counsel contends that petitioners were included at Sl.Nos.3, 5,10 and 11. From the said list, rank Nos.1 to 3 were appointed and 4th vacancy arose on account of retirement of an incumbent. There upon Ext.P5 representation was submitted by the first petitioner claiming appointment to that post, which as is seen from Ext.P6, was forwarded by the Administrative Officer to the Registrar. 4. However, without appointing any one of the petitioners to the vacant post, by Exts.P7 the 2nd respondent was appointed. It was thereupon that this writ petition is filed mainly contending that the WP(c).No.4684/09 3 2nd respondent was not a person who was included in the ranked list viz., Ext.P4(d) and therefore could not have been appointed. 5. What is seen from the counter affidavit filed by respondents 1 and 2 is that second respondent was working as a Plantation Worker(Tapper) and that he too was an applicant in response to Ext.P3. It is stated that however as a confusion was prevailing whether he was a permanent labourer, eligibility to apply in response to Ext.P3, his name was not included in the ranked list. It is stated that at about that time, this court rendered Ext.R2(f) judgment in WP(c).No.31084/09, clarifying that permanent tappers were also permanent laborers. It is stated that relying on such judgment the 2nd respondent submitted Ext.R2(g) representation to the University seeking his inclusion in the ranked list and accordingly, the University issued order dated 30.1.2009 directing his inclusion in the ranked list and that, it is this order which is referred to in Ext.P7. It is stated that on the basis of his inclusion in the ranked list he was the next eligible candidate to be appointed and therefore that the 2nd respondent was appointed to the vacancy available. Facts so pleaded by the 2nd respondent are fully supported in the counter affidavit relied by the first respondent University also. WP(c).No.4684/09 4 6. Evidently therefore the 2nd respondent, being a permanent tapper was also a permanent worker. Though he was also a candidate who had offered his candidature in response to Ext.P3, he was not included in the ranked list only on account of the wrong impression which the University had that he is not an eligible candidate. When this court clarified that he too was an eligible candidate he represented to the University and it was on that basis the University by order dated 30.1.2009 corrected the mistake and directed his inclusion in the ranked list. Therefore, the fact that he was not included in the Ext.P4 series ranked list already published by the University, has no relevance as his name was subsequently ordered to be included in the ranked list. In my view it was only an act of correcting the mistake occurred on the part of the University and if that be so based on the ranking the 2nd respondent was entitled to be appointed. The petitioners have no case that even after such inclusion in the ranked list, they had superior ranking and had been overlooked. If that be so, I cannot hold that the petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned action. 7. Therefore, on the whole I am satisfied that the University was correcting a mistake by including the 2nd respondent in the ranked list and giving him appointment on the basis of such WP(c).No.4684/09 5 inclusion. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. vi (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE