Disposed

Anoop James v. Mahatma Gandhi University

Kerala HC20 Sept 2014WP(C)/1040/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the University's rejection of a request to retain the re-designation of petitioners as Plumbers only. Instead of substantive relief, the Court directed the petitioners to submit a representation within one month for the University to reconsider the matter.

What did the court decide?

Directions to submit a representation within one month; University to consider and pass orders within three months after hearing.

Anoop James Vs Mahatma Gandhi University — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶4

SATURDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014/29TH BHADRA, 1936 WP(C).No. 1040 of 2008 (W) --------------------------PETITIONER(S): --------------

¶5

ANOOP JAMES, PLUMBER, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM.

¶6

FAISAL K.S., PLUMBER, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM.

¶7

SHAJI THOMAS, PLUMBER, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM. 4. BABUDAS.M., PLUMBER, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM.

¶8

JOHN VARGHESE, PLUMBER, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM. 6. MADHU.M.T., E, PLUMBER, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM. BY ADVS.SRI.M.V.BOSE SRI.VINOD MADHAVAN SMT.NISHA BOSE RESPONDENT(S): --------------

¶9

MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.

¶10

THE VICE CHANCELLOR, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM.

¶11

THE UNIVERSITY ENGINEER, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS KOTTAYAM.

¶12

R,R1 TO 3 BY ADV. SRI. T.A. SHAJI, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY RR1 TO 3 BY ADV. SRI.VARUGHESE M.EASO, SC, M.G. UNIVERSITY R1-R3 BY ADV. DR.P.LEELAKRISHNAN, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-09-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

WP(C).No. 1040 of 2008 (W)

¶14

A P P E N D I X

¶15

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS

¶16

EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION DT.17.3.1994. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.15.6.01 IN CMP NO.21277/01 IN O.P.13377/01.

¶17

EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DT.15.3.05 FROM THE REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶18

EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT.18.11.05 OF THE REGISTRAR, M.G.UNIVERSITY. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DT.22.11.05 ISSUED BY REGISTRAR, M.G.UNIVERSITY. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF MEMO DATED 9.12.05 ISSUED BY REGISTRAR, M.G.UNIVERSITY. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DT.30.03.07 IN WPC.NO.7562/06(A). EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DT.19.06.06. EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGFMENT DT.7.9.07 IN CON.CASE(C) NO.1148/07.

¶19

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS

NIL.

/true copy/

P.S to Judge

P.V.ASHA, J.

W.P(c) No.1040 of 2008-W

¶25

Dated this the 20^th day of September, 2014

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

The petitioners herein have approached this Court challenging Ext.P8 order by which their request for changing their re-designation as Plumber cum Pump Operator was rejected by the University. According to the petitioners they were appointed on the basis of Ext.P1 notification issued on 17.03.1994, in which applications were invited for the posts of Plumber on the scale of pay of Rs.950-1500, prescribing the qualification as a pass in Std.VIII, Plumbing licence and Sanitary Engineering Certificate from I.T.I. The petitioners say that they could have been appointed only as Plumbers and not as Pump Operators. Contrary to the notification inviting applications for their appointment, the University re-designated their post and they were asked to work as Pump Operators also. According to them, the State Government as well as the Kerala Water Authority and Universities of Kerala, Calicut etc. are having separate posts of Plumbers and Pump Operators and each of

¶28

¶29

W.P(c) No.1040 of 2008-W

¶30

those posts are under different departments.

¶31

The petitioners have approached this Court earlier in O.P.No.13377 of 2001 and this Court had granted an interim order as per Ext.P2 staying their re-designation as Pump Operators. On the basis of direction in Ext.P5 judgment in that O.P, the University, after hearing them, passed an order saying that there are no separate posts of Plumbers and Pump Operators in the University. At the same time, it was admitted that there are separate posts of Plumbers and Pump Operators in other Government Departments/Universities etc. But in the case of M.G University, the Syndicate has already decided to redesignate the post and even before that the re-designation was done.

¶32

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the University.

¶33

The petitioners have approached this Court aggrieved by the order Ext.P8 by which their request was rejected by the University.

¶34

It is submitted that the petitioners have been continuing in their respective posts and the grievances subsisting, if any in the matter can be directed to be considered

¶35

¶36

W.P(c) No.1040 of 2008-W

¶37

by the University, in view of the change of circumstances. I think the Writ Petition can be disposed of with the following directions:

¶38

i) In case the grievance of the petitioners still subsists, the petitioners can submit a representation before the University within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment;

¶39

ii) On receipt of such representation, the University shall consider the matter and pass appropriate orders after affording an opportunity of being heard to the representatives of the petitioners, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of such representation.

¶40

With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

rtr/

Anoop James v. Mahatma Gandhi University

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anoop James v. Mahatma Gandhi University

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amity Rock Products (P0 Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

T.G.Vilasini Vs National Insurance Company

N.Komalakumar Vs the State of Kerala and Others

Nandakumar Vs Registrar Kerala Agricultural University

Dr.P.P.Souhrudan Vs the University of Kerala

B.Santhosh Kumar Vs State of Kerala