Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 884 (KER)

Sreedharan Nair G. v. University of Kerala

2017-06-14

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

body2017
JUDGMENT : Devan Ramachandran, J. The petitioners assert to be employed as Security Guards in the services of the Kerala University from the year 2000-2006. They admit that their engagement is on contract and is in the nature of casual/daily employment. 2. The petitioners say that they entered the contract with the University, being sponsored by the District Sainik Welfare Board since all of them are retirees from the Indian Army. Their grievance is that in spite of the fact that the University have taken steps for regularisation of their services by conducting an interview, no further action was taken thereafter in furtherance of such process to appoint and regularise them. They have, therefore, filed this writ petition praying, inter alia, that follow up action be directed to be taken by the University pursuant to Ext. P2 minutes of the Syndicate, which according to the petitioners, had resolved to regularise them. 3. I have heard Smt. Sumathi Dandapani, the learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri. Millu Dandapani, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. Thomas Abraham, the learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent University. 4. Smt. Sumathi Dandapani, the learned Senior Counsel informs me that there are 60 vacancies available in the services of the 1st respondent University to accommodate Security Guards. She asserts that all the petitioners were recommended by the District Sainik Welfare Board, the 2nd respondent herein, noticing that they are all qualified and physically capable of discharging their duties as Security Guards in the best possible manner. She asserts that several instances have been pointed by the petitioners in this writ petition, wherein similarly situated persons were absorbed by the University by following a procedure of written test and interview. Mrs. Dandapani asserts that even in the case of the petitioners, the University had conducted a procedure in the form of a written test and interview, which culminated in Ext. P2 preliminary minutes, that was adopted by the Syndicate of the University in its 12th Meeting dated 23.08.2012. The petitioners, based on Ext.P2, have prayed that follow up action be directed to be taken by the University to complete the process so as to lead to their appointment and absorption. 5. I notice that a counter affidavit has been filed by the University. The fact that the process of interview of the petitioners were conducted by the University is admitted. 5. I notice that a counter affidavit has been filed by the University. The fact that the process of interview of the petitioners were conducted by the University is admitted. However, it is stated therein that after the interview was completed, the Vice Chancellor of the University cancelled the same finding certain procedural irregularity to have been committed in conducting the interview and that he had called for a report with regard to the interview and the allegations of irregularities from the concerned authorities. A copy of the said report, thus placed before the Vice Chancellor, has been placed on record and appended to the counter affidavit as Ext.R1(c). In Ext.R1(c), I notice that the singular allegation is that Security Guards engaged on daily wages/casual basis are appointed based on a contract executed with the specific covenant that their employment shall not lead to any claim for future appointment in the University. It also says that the existing Security Guards on daily wages/casual basis were permitted to continue on the basis of such terms, provided there was need for their service. The Vice Chancellor of the University appears to take the position that since such engagement will not entitle them to any claim for permanent appointment, they need not have been put through a process of interview for such purpose since any such process becomes completely redundant and superfluous. 6. I have considered the rival submissions at the Bar as well as the materials and documents available on record. There is no doubt that the petitioners were subjected to a process intended for their regularisation which is recorded in Ext.P2 minutes. However, it is also not in dispute that the Vice Chancellor of the University cancelled that process for the reasons recorded above. The question as to whether the petitioners or such other persons, who are employed on daily wages/casual basis, have to be regularised is a matter of pure policy to be adopted by the University. However, it is also not in dispute that the Vice Chancellor of the University cancelled that process for the reasons recorded above. The question as to whether the petitioners or such other persons, who are employed on daily wages/casual basis, have to be regularised is a matter of pure policy to be adopted by the University. It is now settled by various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that while dealing with questions of policy considerations and matters in the realm of administration policy, the jurisdiction of this Court, acting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is to a large extent barricaded and constrained (see for support - Tata Cellular v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 11 and Balaco Employees Union (Regd.) v. Union of India and Others, 2002 [2] SCC 333). Viewed from this angle, I am certain that I will not be justified in granting the reliefs, as has been sought for by the petitioners. However, this does not mean that they should be left without any remedy at all. 7. I notice that in similar factual circumstances, this Court had earlier delivered a judgment, a copy of which is appended to this writ petition as Ext.P1. Another learned Judge of this Court had noticed all these assertions of similarly placed persons and had directed the University to take a decision regarding their regularisation. 8. Mrs. Dandapani, the learned Senior Counsel tells me that pursuant to the directions contained in Ext.P1, the petitioners therein and certain other persons were subsequently regularised. She says that her clients are also, therefore, entitled to the similar treatment at the hands of the University. 9. If, as stated by the learned Senior Counsel, the University had earlier made absorptions from persons similarly situated like the petitioners, there is some force in what Mrs. Dandapani submits. However, this does not mean that the petitioners would have any vested right or that the University would be forensically obligated to regularise them. 10. In the case at hand, I see that the Vice Chancellor of the University has deemed it appropriate and necessary to cancel the process, that was initiated for the purpose of regularisation of the petitioners. This again is a matter of policy, which the Vice Chancellor had deemed it appropriate to adopt, taking into account the reasons stated in Ext.R1(c). In the case at hand, I see that the Vice Chancellor of the University has deemed it appropriate and necessary to cancel the process, that was initiated for the purpose of regularisation of the petitioners. This again is a matter of policy, which the Vice Chancellor had deemed it appropriate to adopt, taking into account the reasons stated in Ext.R1(c). I do not think that this Court would be legally permitted to enter into these areas since these are matters which are at best left to experts to consider and decide. However, since the petitioners assert that similarly situated persons have already been absorbed, it is only appropriate that they may be given an opportunity to make a representation before the Vice Chancellor of the 1st respondent University detailing all their claims and requesting indulgence of the University for regularisation, taking into account the fact that they have been working on daily wages/contract basis for the last more than 15 to 17 years. 11. In such circumstances and the reasons that I have recorded above, I order this writ petition granting liberty to the petitioners to make a fresh representation before the Vice Chancellor of the 1st respondent University making all their claims and enumerating all their contentions, including those that have been taken in this writ petition, if they are so advised and seek that they be regularised in a manner according to law. I direct the petitioners, if they are so desirous, to make a representation within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and if such a representation is received by the Vice Chancellor of the University within the time granted herein, he will be obligated to consider the same, taking into account Ext.P1 judgment of this Court, as well as the contentions of the petitioners relating to their regularisation, after affording an opportunity of being heard to one of them, within a period of three months thereafter. 12. This writ petition is thus ordered.