Disposed

Aiswarya Krishna v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Sept 2014WP(C)/6090/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment addressed rival claims of two groups of candidates for employment at Mahatma Gandhi University. The Court held that the employment exchange list had expired, no vested rights existed for temporary appointees, and claims for regularisation based on past orders were invalid as the selection process was irregular.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to follow appropriate steps to fill vacancies via regular recruitment; temporary engagements not validated as regular.

Aiswarya Krishna Vs State of Kerala — Company and Corporate | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014/12TH BHADRA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 6090 of 2014 (I)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. AISWARYA KRISHNA

¶8

POOVAPPALLIL HOUSE, UZHUVA, PATTANAKKAD P.O.

¶9

CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶10

2. ALLY RANI A.K. AMPOTY BHAVAN, BHARANIKKAVU, PUNALUR

¶11

KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶12

3. ANEESH T.MOHAN

¶13

THACHETH HOUSE, PAINGARAPPILLY P.O., THURUTHIKKARA

¶14

ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶15

ANANDA BHAVAN, KURUNGAZHA P.O., PULLAD PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶16

5. ANU P.M.

¶17

ANJILIMOOTTIL, KARAKKADU P.O., CHENGANNUR.

¶18

6. BEENA ELISABATH

¶19

GRACE VILLA, KUMARAPURAM P.O., HARIPAD ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶20

7. BIMALJITH D. PARIPPALLY KIZHAKKEVEEDU, TOWN LIMIT, KADAPPAKADA P.O. KOLLAM.

¶21

8. BINDU R. UNNITHAN

¶22

KALATHIVILAYIL HOUSE, PAYYANALLOOR P.O., ELAMPALLIL PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶23

9. BINDU A.

¶24

UZHATHIETHU SREE SAILAM, PARUMALA P.O. PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶25

10. CHITHRALEKHA P.

¶26

THENGUMVILAYIL, PONAKAM, PUNNAMOODU MAVELIKARA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶27

11. DAISY JACOB

¶28

CHIRAYIL PAREKADAVIL, PAKKIL P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶29

12. DEEPA R. NAIR ANANDA SADANAM, THRIKKODITHANAM P.O., CHANGANACHERRY KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶30

WP(C).No. 6090 of 2014

¶31

¶32

13. DEEPA V.S. VARATHIYIL HOUSE, NEDIYASSALA P.O., THODUPUZHA IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶33

14. GEETHA S. PUTHENVILA VEEDU, EZHUKONE P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶34

15. GEORGE THOMAS MANCOTTIL HOUSE, MANNANAM P.O., KOTTAYAM.

¶35

16. JISHA V.K. VARIKKATTUPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHUNDAKUZHY P.O., MEENPARA ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶36

17. JISHA P. PUTHIYAVEETTIL HOUSE, PERUMTHURUTHY, ELATHOOR P.O. KOZHIKODE.

¶37

18. KALPANA S.NAIR KARTHIKA, MEKKADAMPU P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶38

19. LEELAKUTTY V.M. VILANGUPARA HOUSE, NOOROMMAVU P.O., ANIKKADU ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶39

20. LETHA N.K. USHUS, EZACHERRY P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶40

21. LINCY JOSEPH PADINJAREMURIYIL HOUSE, THOTTAKKAD P.O. KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶41

22. MOORTHY LAKSHMI BALAN AMBIKA SADAN, ANAYARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶42

23. NANDANAM RAJASREE HARIPRASADAM, POOCHAKKAL P.O., CHERTHALA ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶43

24. NEENA B.

¶44

KARALAMARUKIL HOUSE, KUDAYATHOOR P.O., KOLAPRA.

¶45

25. PRANAB PRASAD ANANDA BHAVAN, ELAVUMTHITTA P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶46

26. RAHUL T. THEKKEDATH RANJINI HOUSE, KAROOR P.O., PALAI KOTTAYAM.

¶47

27. RAJI NAIR

¶48

CHAITHANYA, POOTHAKUZHY P.O., SOUTH PAMPADI KOTTAYAM.

¶49

28. RAJI C.R. CHENNANOLIKKAL HOUSE, NOOROMMAVU P.O., PUNNAVELI PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶50

WP(C).No. 6090 of 2014

¶51

¶52

29. RAZIA ISMAIL EDATHUMPARAMBIL, CHEMMANAMPADI, GANDHI NAGAR P.O. KOTTAYAM.

¶53

30. REMYA R.J. SWATHY, K.B.NAGAR 170C, ADIKKADU SOUTH ERAVIPURAM P.O. KOLLAM.

¶54

31. REMYA H. SWAPNA, NELLETTIL P.O., POOTHAKULAM KOLLAM.

¶55

32. REMYA M.T. MANGALATH HOUSE, THIDANAD P.O., KOTTAYAM.

¶56

33. RENJITH V.SATHYAN

¶57

VEDATHRAYAM, KAILAS LANE, KUDAPPANAKKUNNU P.O. PEROORKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶58

34. RENJITH P.S. KRISHNA SADANAM, THURUTHIKKARA P.O., KUNNATHOOR KOLLAM.

¶59

35. SAJITHA GOPALAKRISHNAN

¶60

MULAKULAM MYALIL HOUSE, NEENDOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM.

¶61

36. SALIH N. MIDHLAG MANZIL, ERUMAKUZHY, NOORANAD P.O. ALAPPUZHA.

¶62

37. SHANIMOL M.A.

¶63

PARAYIL HOUSE, THALANAD P.O., KOTTAYAM.

¶64

38. SHERLA BEEGAM S. SATHYA BHAVAN, KAKKAKUNNU P.O., SOORANAD SOUTH KOLLAM.

¶65

39. SHINO MATHEW EDATTEL HOUSE, VATTUKULAM P.O., KOTTAYAM.

¶66

40. SINDHU P.G.

¶67

CHERUMAKKAL, CHAMBAKKARA P.O., KARUKACHAL KOTTAYAM.

¶68

41. SREEJU K. SREEKANDA BHAVAN, VAYAMBAKONAM, MANNANTHALA P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶69

42. SUBHA S.SIVAN VASANTHA BHAVANAM, KULAKADA P.O., KOLLAM.

¶70

43. SUMA K., REHMANIA MANZIL, KARUKONE, ANCHAL P.O., KOLLAM.

¶71

44. SUMA ROSE JOSEPH THOOMKUZHIYIL HOUSE, L.V.S.ROAD, THIRUVANKULAM P.O. ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶72

WP(C).No. 6090 of 2014

¶73

¶74

45. SUMANGALA K.K. KARTHIKAMOLEL HOUSE, NELLAD P.O., ERNAKULAM.

¶75

46. SWAPNA S.R. SREE NIKETHAN, PALACE ROAD, CHANGANASSERY KOTTAYAM.

¶76

47. TIKSON THOMAS PARAYIL HOUSE, AMALAGIRI P.O., KOTTAYAM.

¶77

48. TOMY THOMAS PALAKUDIYIL HOUSE, KAPPAD P.O., KANJIRAPPALLY KOTTAYAM.

¶78

49. VIDHYA S. SREE NIKETHAN, BHARANIKAVU SOUTH, ALAPPUZHA.

¶79

BY ADVS.DR.K.P.SATHEESAN (SR.) SRI.M.R.JAYAPRASAD SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) SRI.ANOOP.V.NAIR SRI.S.VIBHEESHANAN

¶80

RESPONDENT(S):

¶81

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶82

2. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, PRIYADARSINI HILLS KOTTAYAM-686560.

¶83

3. THE SYNDICATE REPRESENTED BY THE VICE CHANCELLOR MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSINI HILLS P.O. KOTTAYAM-686560.

¶84

*ADDL.R4 IMPLEADED:

¶85

4. SANISH SATHYAN, THOTTUPURATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, THIRUVAMKULAM, EROOR P.O., ERNAKULAM

¶86

*ADDL.R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 3.9.2014 IN IA.NO. 11856/14.

¶87

R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. M.J. RAJASREE R2 & 3 BY ADV. DR.P.LEELAKRISHNAN, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY R2 & 3 BY ADV. SRI.VARUGHESE M.EASO, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY ADDL. R4 BY ADV. SRI.V.K.SUNIL

¶88

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03-09-2014, ALONG WITH WPC. 6599/2014 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶89

WP(C).No. 6090 of 2014

¶90

¶91

APPENDIX

¶92

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶93

EXHIBIT P1- TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 13-12-2004.

¶94

EXHIBIT P2- TRUE COPY OF THE RANKED LIST PUBLISHED BY THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY AS PER NOTIFICATION DATED 12-11-2009.

¶95

EXHIBIT P3- TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO ISSUED TO ONE OF THE PETITIONERS BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 13-06-2011.

¶96

EXHIBIT P4- TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF 58 PERSONS SO APPOINTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AS PROVISIONAL ASSISTANTS.

¶97

EXHIBIT P5- TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE MINUTES OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT SYNDICATE MEETING HELD ON 5-12-2013.

¶98

EXHIBIT P6- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY DATED 24-10-2013.

¶99

EXHIBIT P7- TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 3R RESPONDENT DATED 24-04-2014.

¶100

EXHIBIT P8 – TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. REGR/01/514/2014 DATED 4.3.2014 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶101

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL

¶102

--------------------------------------

¶103

/TRUE COPY/

¶104

P.A. TO JUDGE VPV

¶105

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶106

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

¶107

W.P.(C)Nos.6090, 6599, 7325, 7712, 13604, 20180 & 20406 of 2014 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

¶108

Dated this the 3^rd day of September, 2014

¶109

JUDGMENT

¶110

The issues involved in all these cases are closely interlinked; which in fact pertains to appointment of 'Assistants' on a temporary basis for 179 days by the respondent University in the vacancies resulted by virtue of 'deputation' and granting of 'long leave' to the existing employees.

¶111

The main dispute is between two groups of rival candidates. The first one having undergone a detailed selection process in connection with the recruitment for filling up the regular vacancies notified in the year 2004, but were less fortunate having placed at lower levels in the select list published in the year 2009 and could not get regular appointment before the validity of the list was over. The other group consists of persons who are enlisted pursuant to notification of the vacancies to the concerned Employment Exchanges and sponsoring of candidates, based on which a selection process was conducted by the University. Petitioners in W.P.(C)Nos.6090/2014, 6599/2014, 7325/2014,

¶112

¶113

W.P.(C)Nos.6090, 6599, 7325, 7712, 13604, 20180 & 20406 of 2014

¶114

7712/2014 and 20406/2014 belong to the former group; while the petitioners in W.P.(C)Nos.13604/2014 and 20180/2014 belong to the latter group. The petitioners in W.P.(C)Nos.6090/2014 and 7325/2014 seek for regularisation of their temporary engagement, while the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.7712/2014 seeks to set aside the appointment order dated 12.7.2011 showing it as 'temporary' and to treat it as regular. Prayer of the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.6599/2014 is only to permit them to continue till regular selection is made and regular hands are appointed. Petitioner in W.P.(C)No.20406/2014 only wants to set aside the select list prepared/published by the University on 1.1.2014, on sponsoring candidates by the Employment Exchanges.

¶115

In the course of further proceedings, the University chose to appoint persons from the former list, based on the resolution (produced as Ext.P7 in W.P.(C)No.13604/2014) to the effect that the University wanted to engage experienced hands to meet the time-bound works in connection with the Examinations. This is sought to be challenged by the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.13604/2014, contending that, in so far as a 'valid list' is in existence, pursuant to sponsoring of the candidates by the Employment Exchanges, no person from the expired list (though it be in connection with the

¶116

¶117

W.P.(C)Nos.6090, 6599, 7325, 7712, 13604, 20180 & 20406 of 2014

¶118

regular appointment) could be pursued and as such, the persons who are enlisted in the subsequent list prepared after sponsoring candidates by the Employment Exchanges should be given appointment. Almost similar contentions have been raised by the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.20180/2014. It is contended that the said petitioner was earlier enlisted, pursuant to notification of the vacancies to Employment Exchange and was appointed for different spells of 179 days. Subsequently, the said petitioner came to be enlisted in the recent list dated 1.1.2014 as well, pursuant to notification of the vacancies to the Employment Exchanges. If the stand of the University is that they want to have experienced hands, the said petitioner, having already worked in the University, pursuant to 2009 list, should be given employment.

¶119

The petitioners belonging to the first group contend that there is nothing arbitrary on the part of the University in having decided to engage them on temporary basis; more so in view of the organizational requirement to have had experienced hands. The engagement is only as a 'stop gap' arrangement to meet the need of the hour; particularly in connection with the various examinations already scheduled; for which the service of experienced hands will be more beneficial to the University. The decisions rendered by the

¶120

¶121

W.P.(C)Nos.6090, 6599, 7325, 7712, 13604, 20180 & 20406 of 2014

¶122

Apex Court reported in AIR 1994 SC 1804 (State of Haryana v. M.P.Sharma) and by a Division Bench of this Court in 1996 (2) KLT 306 ( K.P.S.C. Reserve Conductors Rank Holders Association & Others v. State ) are sought to be relied on in this regard.

¶123

When W.P.(C)No.13604/2014 came up for admission, an interim order of stay was passed on 29.5.2014 whereby the University was prevented from re-appointment/regularisation of Provisional Assistants whose names figured in the Rank List published by the University as per notification dated 12.9.2009. Subsequently, after hearing the other interested parties along with the connected cases, the said interim order came to be varied by another learned Judge, as per order dated 27.8.2014, whereby, as a temporary measure, it was ordered that the engagement could be pursued on a '50:50' basis, from both the lists. This was sought to be challenged by filing W.A.No.1054/2014 by the petitioner in W.P. (C)No.13604/2014, whereby the subsequent interim order was set aside and the earlier order was restored. The writ appeal was later disposed of on 19.8.2014, facilitating the writ petitions to be considered and finalised. It is accordingly, that all these matters came to be listed for consideration before this Court.

¶124

¶125

W.P.(C)Nos.6090, 6599, 7325, 7712, 13604, 20180 & 20406 of 2014

¶126

The petitioner in W.P.(C)No.20406/2014 (wherein the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.13604/2014 stands impleaded as the sixth respondent), has taken up a specific plea that the selection conducted pursuant to sponsoring of candidates by the Employment Exchange was more than a farce of the proceedings and that the list is not liable to be acted upon. Ext.P1 is the requisition form, wherein the “Essential qualifications” specified are (1) Degree from a recognised University and (2) Good and legible handwriting. The total number of vacancies were '111' and tenure of engagement was '179 days'. On receipt of the list from the Employment Exchange, selection was conducted by a Committee constituted by the University, headed by the Vice Chancellor and four other members. Ext.P3 is the merit rating exercise pursued in this regard. It is contended from the part of the petitioner that, in spite of the fact that the maximum marks allowable for 'Additional qualification' was only '5', persons at serial No.22 and 27 have been awarded more marks than the maximum (giving 6 marks) and the total is reflected in Ext.P4 rank list. It is also stated that only one member of the Committee has signed the proceedings and that the selection is per se wrong in all respects; simultaneously adding that several corrections/interpolations/variation of marks/scoring of, etc.

¶127

¶128

W.P.(C)Nos.6090, 6599, 7325, 7712, 13604, 20180 & 20406 of 2014

¶129

are discernible from Ext.P3. There is a further contention that, no test was conducted to ascertain the second essential qualification i.e., Good and legible handwriting. The factual position in this regard has been got ascertained by the petitioner by pursuing the remedy under the Right to Information Act. A copy of the information furnished in this regard has been produced and marked as Ext.P6, to the effect that no such test was conducted. Still more a contention is there for the petitioner, to the effect that by virtue of the relevant rules/norms prescribed as per the National Employment Service Manual, Vol.I (relevant portion of which has been produced as Ext.P5), the maximum tenure of the list prepared on sponsoring candidates by Employment Exchange, shall only be a period of 'six' months, as given in paragraph 9.31. Ext.P4 list having published as early as on 1.1.2014, it stands expired and as such, no further recruitment could be effected from Ext.P4 list.

¶130

After considering the pleadings and proceedings, this Court directed the University to produce the relevant files; particularly in view of the alleged granting of marks over and above the maximum stipulated for additional qualification. Accordingly, the file was produced and on going through the same, it was revealed that the file did not contain the original of the proceedings

¶131

¶132

W.P.(C)Nos.6090, 6599, 7325, 7712, 13604, 20180 & 20406 of 2014

¶133

pertaining to granting of marks forming part of Ext.P3 in W.P.(C) No.20406/2014. Sri.Jacob Varghese, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the University made a submission that strict instructions have already been given to trace out the file on war footing. Accordingly the file has been traced out and the same has been produced before this Court today, in a sealed cover. On going through the file, it is seen that marks were given to the concerned candidates who participated in the interview by all the members of the Committee who were given separate papers/proceedings and evaluation has been done separately, which bear their signature/ initials in respect of the interview conducted on different dates. This being the position, the version of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.6090/2014 that all the members of the committee have not subscribed their signature to the proceeding does not appear to be correct or proper. This Court also finds that the original of the proceedings very much tally with Exts.P3 and P4 produced by the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.20406/2014.

¶134

However, it has to be borne in mind that marks are seen awarded to at least some of the candidates; particularly at serial No.22 and 27 of Ext.P3 and some other persons by name Vijinath K.R. and Jeeja K.Shamsudeen who have been awarded '6' marks

¶135

¶136

W.P.(C)Nos.6090, 6599, 7325, 7712, 13604, 20180 & 20406 of 2014

¶137

each, for 'Additional qualification'; which could not have been done as the maximum marks under this head were only '5'. The total marks obtained by the candidates are reflected in Ext.P4 list; which in fact takes in the marks wrongly granted for additional qualification. It is also a fact that, there are several scoring and correction of marks at different places, in the case of different candidates.

¶138

The learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.13604/2014 however submits that, even if there is some defect, the whole list need not be invalidated and appropriate extent of segregation can be made, in view of the law declared by the Apex Court as per the decision reported in Union of India & Others v. Rajesh P.U. Puthuvalnikathu & Another [2003 (7) SCC 285], which was followed in the subsequent decision in Chairman, All India Railway Recruitment Board and Another v. K.Shyam Kumar & Others [2010 (6) SCC 614] as well. Before considering the said question, it has necessarily to be looked into, whether the University comes within the purview of the Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959.

¶139

Section 3 of the said Act deals with the cases which stand outside the purview of the Act. It reads as follows:-

¶140

W.P.(C)Nos.6090, 6599, 7325, 7712, 13604, 20180 & 20406 of 2014

¶141

¶142

“ 3. Act not to apply in relation to certain vacancies .-(1) This Act shall not apply in relation to vacancies-

¶143

(a) in any employment in agriculture (including horticulture) in any establishment in private sector other than employment as agricultural or farm machinery operatives;

¶144

¶145

(d) in any employment to do unskilled office work;

¶146

(e) in any employment connected with the staff of Parliament.

¶147

(2) Unless the Central Government otherwise directs by notification in the Official Gazette in this behalf, this Act shall not also apply in relation to-

¶148

(a) vacancies which are proposed to be filled through promotion or by absorption of surplus staff of any branch or department of the same establishment or on the result of any examination conducted or interview held by, or on the recommendation of, any independent agency, such as the Union or a State Public Service Commission and the like;

¶149

(b) vacancies in an employment which carries a remuneration of less than sixty rupees in a month.”

¶150

Sri.Dr.K.P.Satheesan, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C)Nos.6090/2014 & 20406/2014 submits that the term 'public sector' has been defined in Chapter II of Ext.P5 Manual; a copy of which is made available for reference of this Court and it reads as follows:

¶151

“Public Sector” means the activity wholly or

¶152

W.P.(C)Nos.6090, 6599, 7325, 7712, 13604, 20180 & 20406 of 2014

¶153

¶154

substantially controlled by Government or regulated by an Act of Parliament or State legislature. This sector includes establishments under the Central and State Governments, QuasiGovernment establishments and Local Bodies.

¶155

After hearing both the sides, this Court finds it difficult to accept the proposition that the University is bound by the said 'Act'

¶156

and no specific provision of law either in the above Act or in the Mahatma Gandhi University Act, 1985 or any binding precedent is brought to the notice of this Court. However, it is stated that such a practice was being followed by the University for years, so as to maintain transparency. But then if such a course is pursued, naturally Ext.P5 guidelines (National Employment Service Manual) will come into operation, which clearly specifies under clause/ paragraph “9.31” that the validity of the list prepared on sponsoring candidates by the Employment Exchange shall be for a maximum period of six months. In the instant case, Ext.P4 list was published as early as on 1.1.2014 and since the said period of six months is already over, the said list is not liable to be acted upon and there cannot be any vested right for the petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos.13604/2014 and 20180/2014 or the other similarly situated candidates, to claim appointment from the said list.

¶157

Then comes the question as to the rights, if any, of the

¶158

¶159

W.P.(C)Nos.6090, 6599, 7325, 7712, 13604, 20180 & 20406 of 2014

¶160

petitioners in the other cases. Admittedly, they were included in the rank list prepared by the University pursuant to notification of regular vacancies. The University in fact appointed about 311 candidates from the said list. Initially, the validity of the list was only for a period of 2 years, but later, it was extended for one more year; which stands expired. By virtue of the administrative exigency, the University took a resolution to engage experienced hands against the temporary vacancies. It was accordingly, that the University engaged the petitioners in the concerned cases who were enlisted earlier after a proper selection process in furtherance to notification of the vacancies for regular appointment.

¶161

There is a case for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.13604/2014 with reference to Ext.P11, that out of the 57 candidates, who are the so-called experienced hands, only 6 persons have been appointed by the University. As such, the justification to engage the persons from the first lot/group, with reference to Ext.P7 resolution does not have any merit at all; more so, when the validity of the list is already over. Considering the said question, especially in the light of the so-called 'administrative exigency' pointed out by the University with reference to the need to engage experienced hands, it has to be borne in mind that, at the

¶162

¶163

W.P.(C)Nos.6090, 6599, 7325, 7712, 13604, 20180 & 20406 of 2014

¶164

time of granting employment initially to the concerned petitioners from the list prepared in furtherance to the regular selection, they were not having any experience at all. Similarly, when the University is effecting appointment to the regular vacancies, the regular recruits may not have any experience. No experience is stated as stipulated in the recruitment rules for giving appointment as Assistant. This being the position, the version of the University that they require experienced hands to meet the need, does not appear to be much palatable to this Court. However, if the University pursues such a course as a 'stop gap' arrangement, it is stated as permissible to some extent by virtue of the law declared by the Apex Court in AIR 1994 SC 1804 (cited supra); but then, the question is whether such an exercise could be permitted to be continued forever. The net result is that neither the petitioners in the 'first group' of cases, nor the petitioners in the second group headed by the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.13604/2014 does have any vested right to claim appointment from either of the two lists.

¶165

In this context, it is also relevant to note that the University who is now stated as “in trouble” by virtue of the administrative exigency, could have very much filled up the vacancies, if any, by resorting to the process of regular recruitment.

¶166

¶167

W.P.(C)Nos.6090, 6599, 7325, 7712, 13604, 20180 & 20406 of 2014

¶168

It is true that the University has got a case that the University is compelled to pursue the present exercise by way of temporary appointment only by virtue of the unforeseen circumstances; i.e. in respect of the vacancies resulted by virtue of 'deputation' and 'long leave'. If the University is not having the required extent of hands to man the office, why the University should grant deputation or why the long leave should be sanctioned, is a matter for the University to consider; with regard to which, this Court does not intend to express any opinion.

¶169

With regard to the challenge raised by the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.7712/2014 against Ext.P3, whereby appointment given to the petitioner has been shown as 'contract basis' for a period of '179' days and to declare that the said appointment is to be deemed as on regular basis, that there was a feeble attempt on the part of the petitioner to place reliance on Exts.P8 to P10 decisions in support of such contention. As a matter of fact, the circumstances under which such a declaration was made in the aforesaid judgment, ordering the temporary appointment given to the concerned candidates to be treated as regular appointment, stands entirely on a different footing. There is a specific observation in the aforesaid judgments that the regular method of appointment therein

¶170

¶171

W.P.(C)Nos.6090, 6599, 7325, 7712, 13604, 20180 & 20406 of 2014

¶172

was through Employment Exchange and further that, it was after due process of selection, that the persons concerned came to be appointed, which is not the position in the instant case. Here, the regular process of selection is to be done by the University itself, which is an autonomous body and this forms one among the powers of the Syndicate as stipulated under Section 23 of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act, 1985. That apart, Ext.P3 appointment order was issued to the petitioner clearly mentioning the nature of appointment as on 'contract' for a period of '179 days', as early as on 12.07.2011. There was no challenge with regard to the terms of appointment for nearly three years, till the present writ petition came to be filed in March, 2014. This being the position, the challenge raised against Ext.P3 with regard to the nature of appointment and the claim for being treated as a regular employee are without any legal or factual footing, mooted on the basis of a stale cause of action.

¶173

The learned Senior Counsel for the University makes a reference to Section 23 of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act, dealing with the powers of Syndicate and points out that the Syndicate is having power to make appropriate arrangement with regard to the field of recruitment as well. This Court finds that

¶174

¶175

W.P.(C)Nos.6090, 6599, 7325, 7712, 13604, 20180 & 20406 of 2014

¶176

appropriate steps shall be taken by the University afresh, by making necessary arrangements to fill up the vacancies if any or to cancel the deputation and call back the candidates concerned or to issue necessary notice to the persons who have proceeded on long leave and to bring them back in accordance with law. It is also open for the University, to make temporary arrangements to fill the gap, giving an opportunity to all the eligible candidates to participate in the process of selection. After the last notification in respect of the regular vacancies in the year 2004, several candidates might have acquired the necessary qualification by this time and may be waiting in the queue, dreaming of a chance to get appointed, also by registering their names in the Employment Exchanges. Appropriate proceedings shall be taken and the vacancies could be filled up after pursuing such selection process, giving a fair chance to all the candidates to participate in the process. It is made clear that, if any regular vacancy is there, necessary steps shall be pursued to notify the said vacancies as well and to fill up those vacancies immediately; instead of continuing to engage temporary hands year after year pursuant to granting 'deputation' or 'long leave' to the University employees.

¶177

The files produced before this Court stand returned to the

¶178

W.P.(C)Nos.6090, 6599, 7325, 7712, 13604, 20180 & 20406 of 2014

¶179

¶180

learned standing counsel appearing for the University.

¶181

The Writ Petitions are disposed of as above.

¶182

Sd/-

¶183