JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioners claim to be permanent labourers under the first respondent-Kerala Veterinary and Animal Sciences University (the KVAS University for brevity). The petitioners say that they were initially appointed by the Kerala Agricultural University (KAU) as labourers until they were transferred to the KVASU under the prescriptions of the Kerala Veterinary and Animal Sciences University Act, 2010 (the KVASU Act for short). According to them, when they were transferred to the KVAS University, the transitional provisions of the KVASU Act relating to transfer of employees to that University, provided that their conditions of service would continue to be in accordance with the Kerala Agricultural University Act (KAU Act) and its Statutes until it is altered in terms of the provisions of the Act. 2. The petitioners submit that the provisions relating to appointment, qualification, salary, etc. of the various Class IV posts in the Kerala Agricultural University are governed by the “KAU Statutes, prescribing the Method of Appointment, Qualifications, Salary and Allowances and Duties of the post of Class IV 2009.” As per clause (2) of these Statutes, 50% of the vacancies in Class IV posts will have to be filled up by direct recruitment and the balance 50% by appointment from among the labourers and plantation workers. The said Statutes also provide that the qualifications for such appointment will be a minimum of 'pass in Standard V' along with good physique. 3. The petitioners submit that the First Statutes of the KVAS University came into force with effect from 20.05.2014 and according to them, going by the transitional provisions contained in the KVASU Act, all vacancies until 20.05.2014 will have to be filled up only in terms of the applicable provisions of the KAU Act and the various Statutes under it. The petitioners maintain that as per Exhibit P8 communication, there were at least 113 vacancies of Class IV employees under the KVAS University as on 26.02.2014 and that since the First Statutes of KVAS University came into effect only thereafter, such vacancies will have to be filled up only in terms of the KAU Act and the Statutes under it. They have filed these writ petitions alleging that the KVAS University has violated these provisions and that subsequently it has filled up all such vacancies by other persons, thus denying the petitioners their legitimate right for appointment. 4. I have heard Sri. They have filed these writ petitions alleging that the KVAS University has violated these provisions and that subsequently it has filled up all such vacancies by other persons, thus denying the petitioners their legitimate right for appointment. 4. I have heard Sri. G. Krishnakumar and Sri. P.V. Jayachandran, learned counsel for the various petitioners, Smt. Aysha Youseff, learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Government Pleader for the third respondent. 5. There is no doubt that under the transitional provisions of the KVASU Act, until the First Statutes under it came into effect, the provisions of the KAU Act and its Statutes would apply with respect to the service conditions of the employees. Section 55(6) of the KVASU Act provides for this and it reads as under: “Every person employed by the Kerala Agricultural University, and serving in any of the colleges, research stations or institutions specified in sub-section (1) shall, based on their option, as from the specified date, be transferred to the University on the same conditions of service as were applicable to him before such transfer and continue to be governed by the same conditions of service unless and until such conditions are altered in accordance with the provisions of the Statutes and Ordinances: Provided that no such person who is deputed from the Government to Kerala Agricultural University, shall be transferred to the University, without proper prior approval of the Government. Provided further that no person employed by the state but working in colleges, research stations or institutions mentioned in the Schedule shall be transferred to the University, unless the Government takes a decision on the status of his employment, and till then he shall continue to be governed by the conditions of service under which he was employed.” 6. When these provisions are so explicit, it is obvious that all appointments under the KVAS University, until such time as its First Statutes had been notified, would have had to be filled up through the process and by following the qualifications provided under the KAU Act and the Statutes thereunder. When these provisions are so explicit, it is obvious that all appointments under the KVAS University, until such time as its First Statutes had been notified, would have had to be filled up through the process and by following the qualifications provided under the KAU Act and the Statutes thereunder. As per the Statutes prescribing the method of appointment and qualifications of the various Class IV posts in the Kerala Agricultural University, the vacancies of Class IV employees in various categories are to be filled up as follows: (a) 50% of the vacancies by direct recruitment and (b) 50% of the vacancies by appointment from among permanent labourers and plantation works. The qualifications under those Statutes prescribe that for such appointment the candidates have to have a minimum educational qualification of 'pass in Standard V' and good physique. 7. Sri. Krishnakumar, the learned counsel for the petitioners points to Exhibit P8, which is an Agenda Note for the meeting of the Board of Management of the KVAS University, wherein it is stated that as on the date of the said Note, namely 26.02.2014, there are 113 vacancies of Class IV employees. He asserts that these vacancies, which were available even prior to the notification of the First Statutes of the KVAS University, could have been filled up only through the procedure and mandate of the KAU Act and its Statutes. He, therefore, says that the petitioners were entitled to be appointed to 50% of such vacancies since the KAU Act and its applicable Statutes, as mentioned above, mandates that 50% of the vacancies be filled up from among permanent labourers and plantation works. However, what the KVAS University did, according to the learned counsel, is that they filled up all these vacancies with other persons by illegally following the qualifications and method of appointment provided under the KVASU Act and its First Statutes. According to him, this was completely impermissible because as per the transitory provisions in Section 55(6) of the KVASU Act, all such vacancies had to be filled up only by permanent labourers and under the provisions of the KAU Act and its Statutes. 8. I see that a counter affidavit has been placed on record by the KVAS University. According to him, this was completely impermissible because as per the transitory provisions in Section 55(6) of the KVASU Act, all such vacancies had to be filled up only by permanent labourers and under the provisions of the KAU Act and its Statutes. 8. I see that a counter affidavit has been placed on record by the KVAS University. In the said affidavit, they take a stand that even though there were 113 vacancies in Class IV categories as on 20.05.2014, when the KVAS University First Statutes was notified, it had decided consciously not to fill up 54 of such vacancies on account of re-structuring and right sizing of its staff pattern. They say that the Additional Finance Secretary along with the Registrar and Finance Officer had submitted a study report and that the Committee, authorised to look into these issues, had restructured the total number of sanctioned posts to 53 from 113 in respect of Class IV employees in the year 2015. They, therefore, say that 54 posts were thus frozen and no appointment was made against such vacancies on account of the conscious decision to restructure the staff pattern. This is the reason that they are attributing for denying the petitioners their promotion/appointment to the various Class IV categories. Had this position continued, I am certain that this Court would not have found no further jurisdiction to pass any orders directing that the petitioners be appointed. 9. However, what is pertinent in this case is that the respondents admit, in the later paragraphs of the said counter affidavit, that these 54 frozen posts were thereafter de-freezed and that the cadre strength was recast as 111 in the year 2017 and all such posts have been filled up by persons who qualify for such promotion or appointment under the provisions of the KVASU Act and its First Statutes. In effect, what the respondents maintain in their counter affidavit is that even though it is true that 50% of the 113 vacancies, available as on 20.05.2014, had to be filled up by appointment of permanent labourers and plantation workers strictly as per the provisions of the KAU Act and its applicable Statutes, it was not done because all such vacancies were 'frozen' and that it was later de-freezed to pave way for appointment by persons holding qualifications under the KVASU Act and its First Statutes. 10. 10. The stand of the respondents in the counter affidavit is absolutely untenable to say the least. The law mandates that all those vacancies available in Class IV categories under the KVAS University as on 20.05.2014, the date on which its First Statutes were notified, be filled up from among the permanent labourers following the method of appointment and qualifications prescribed by the KAU Act and the Statutes thereunder. If the KVAS University had already filled up all such vacancies, it could have done so only after following the procedure and prescriptions under the KAU Act and Statutes. 11. However, the stratagem the KVAS University seems to have adopted in this case is very ingenuous. They first decided, in the year 2015, not to fill up any of the 54 vacancies that should have normally gone into the quota for appointment of permanent labourers citing it to be a re-structuring of its staff pattern and then apparently de-freezing it a year or two later and then filling up those 54 vacancies by persons who were found qualified under the provisions of the KVASU Act and its First Statutes. This is completely impermissible and it does not require much of an expatiation to establish this. This is because the 54 vacancies that were frozen by the KVAS University in the year 2015 were concededly those which should have gone to the petitioners and similarly placed persons. However, since the KVAS University had then taken a decision not to fill up those vacancies, it was incumbent upon them to fill it up, whenever they wanted to in future, only by those persons who would qualify for appointment under the terms of the KAU Act and its applicable Statutes. Unfortunately, this was not what was done by the KVAS University. They proceeded to de freeze' these 54 vacancies in the year 2017 and then to fill it up by persons qualified as per the KVASU Act and its First Statutes. This, without requirement of any further explication, is obviously intended to defeat the legitimate rights of persons like the petitioners who had acquired a vested right for appointment to those vacancies which were available in the service of the KVAS University as on 20.05.2014. 12. This, without requirement of any further explication, is obviously intended to defeat the legitimate rights of persons like the petitioners who had acquired a vested right for appointment to those vacancies which were available in the service of the KVAS University as on 20.05.2014. 12. I also notice that in an analogous situation, in an earlier round of litigation between certain other employees and the KVAS University, this Court had taken a similar view and had directed that those petitioners be appointed by the KVAS University in their services into the various Class IV categories, if necessary by creating supernumerary posts to accommodate them. I am in respectful affirmation of the holdings and conclusions of the learned Judge in Exhibit P9 judgment and I see no reason to deviate therefrom. 13. Smt. Aysha Youseff, learned Standing Counsel for the KVAS University, concedes that all available vacancies have been filled up by other persons adopting the qualifications and method of appointment under the KVASU Act and its First Statutes. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners, pointing to a reply affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners, refutes this and submits that even after accommodating all those persons who are alleged to have been appointed by the KVAS University subsequent to 20.05.2014, there are at least 19 vacancies available. He says that this an addition to those vacancies filled up by the petitioners in Exhibit P9 judgment. Of course, I see that these submissions are strongly contested by Smt. Aysha Youseff, learned Standing Counsel for the KVAS University. However, I must be cognizant that there is no material on record to show whether there are vacancies available in the KVAS University which can be offered to the petitioners or otherwise. 14. In any event of the matter, it is ineluctable that each of the petitioners herein have acquired a vested right to be appointed to the vacancies that were available in the service of the KVAS University prior to 20.05.2014 subject, of course, to their having the necessary educational qualifications. 14. In any event of the matter, it is ineluctable that each of the petitioners herein have acquired a vested right to be appointed to the vacancies that were available in the service of the KVAS University prior to 20.05.2014 subject, of course, to their having the necessary educational qualifications. Even if there are no such vacancies, their legitimate rights cannot be curtailed and obliterated by the KVAS University by adopting a stratagem and I am, therefore, compelled to hold that the KVAS University will be enjoined and obligated by the terms of the various Statutes referred to above, to offer and grant appointment to the petitioners in these writ petitions to appropriate Class IV categories without any further delay. 15. At this point of time, Smt. Aysha Youseff says that some of the petitioners are not qualified even as per the KAU Act and Statutes, since they do not possess the required qualification, namely pass in Standard V. I am certain that these are issues which can be considered by the competent authorities of the KVAS University while offering and granting employment to the petitioners. If any of them do not possess the minimum educational qualification, obviously, the University would be entitled to deny them such appointment. The learned Standing Counsel for the KVAS University also says that at least one or two of the petitioners in these writ petitions may not be physically in a position to take up such appointments. She refers to the case of Sri. C.L. Thambi in W.P. (C) No. 31149/2016, who has stated that he has undergone an Angioplasty and she is vehement in her submission that such a person cannot be granted an appointment. She refers to the qualification in the KAU Act and Statutes which provides for a good physique for such an appointment. I am afraid that these submissions cannot be countenanced without reservation. It may be true that the petitioner aforementioned may have undergone the process of Angioplasty which, in my view, is not one that could make him incapacitated or debilitated to take up an appointment in Class IV category, especially because he is presently working as a permanent labourer engaged in a far more physically demanding job. It may be true that the petitioner aforementioned may have undergone the process of Angioplasty which, in my view, is not one that could make him incapacitated or debilitated to take up an appointment in Class IV category, especially because he is presently working as a permanent labourer engaged in a far more physically demanding job. Therefore, for the sole reason that the said petitioner has undergone an Angioplasty, it will be egregiously unfair to deny him appointment for the ostensible reason that he does not allegedly have a good physique, as is now contended by the learned Standing Counsel. 16. That being said, however, if the KVAS University has a bona fide suspicion that any of the petitioners do not have the physical capacity to take up an employment in Class IV category, they would be entitled to subject such persons to a proper physical examination and if such examination clears them for the purpose of appointment to Class IV posts, they would be enjoined and obligated to offer them the employment. 17. They cannot deny the petitioners appointment in any other situation except that they fail in a physical test conducted by a competent Medical Board or that they do not have the minimum educational qualification as is required under the KAU Act and Statutes. 18. In such circumstances and following the judgment of this Court in Exhibit P9, I order this writ petition and direct the first respondent-KVAS University to appoint the petitioners in these writ petitions into appropriate Class IV categories under its services without any further delay and not later than two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. I am fixing the time so short because, I am aware, as has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners, that many of the petitioners are due for retirement and that a few of them will retire as early as in the next month or less. I am fixing the time so short because, I am aware, as has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners, that many of the petitioners are due for retirement and that a few of them will retire as early as in the next month or less. If there are no vacancies in Class IV categories to accommodate the petitioners, as is now submitted by the learned Standing Counsel, the KVAS University will be obligated to appoint them, subject to their educational and physical eligibility as aforementioned, to such posts which will have to be created on a supernumerary basis and which will continue to be co-terminus with the service of such petitioners, as had been earlier directed by this Court in Exhibit P9 judgment. I deem these directions to be necessary because the petitioners herein cannot be unfairly treated or discriminated in relation to the petitioners in Exhibit P9 judgment since I am told by the learned Standing Counsel that the directions in the said judgment had been complied with and that the petitioners therein have already been offered appointment.