Allowed

Anilkumar C.R v. University of Calicut

Kerala HC4 Jun 2014WP(C)/6971/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble High Court of Kerala directed the University of Calicut to appoint petitioners as Assistant Grade II by absorbing them into existing vacancies, considering a clarification in the Audit report that total strength need not exceed 750. Order passed within two months.

What did the court decide?

University to consider Audit report clarification and pass appropriate orders appointing petitioners within two months.

Anilkumar C.R Vs University of Calicut — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE 2014/14TH JYAISHTA, 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 6971 of 2011 (V)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. ANILKUMAR.C.R, CHANDRABHAVANAM, VILLOONNI P.O., ARPOOKARA, KOTTAYAM-8.

¶8

2. ANIL KUMAR-UPPALAKKAL, AJITH VIHAR, MADAPPALLY COLLEGE P.O., VATAKARA-2, KOZHIKODE, PIN-673 102.

¶9

3. SAJEEV.K.S, KALLUMADATHIL HOUSE, PRESS CLUB COLONY (M.NO.41), EDAPPALLY P.O.,

¶10

KOCHI-24.

¶11

4. SALINI.P.DEVASIA, NARIYANKUNNEL, CHERUVANDOOR, ETTUMANOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM, PIN-686 631.

¶12

5. LAJU PEETER, EBENAZER COTTAGE, KOZHUVALLOOR P.O., CHENGANNOOR,

¶13

ALAPUZHA DISTRICT,PIN-689 521.

¶14

6. TELMA PSYCHO.P, `ADLINE',P.O.VENGERI, THADAMBATTUTHAZHAM, CALICUT-673 010.

¶15

7. VINEETHA LINNET, IIIRD FLOOR, EXPRESS GARDEN APARTMENTS, PATTERI,

¶16

P.O.KUTHIRAVATTOM, CALICUT.

¶17

8. JOSHILA.M.T, MOOSARI THODIKAYIL HOUSE, KONOTT P.O., POLUR, KUNNAMANGALAM (VIA), KOZHIKODE-673 571.

¶18

9. SAVITHA.K.M, W/O.ANILNARAYANAN, CHARYA MOHANASREE P.O., VAIYARA,

¶19

MALAPPURAM-676 308.

¶20

BY SRI.P.RAVINDRAN,SENIOR ADVOCATE ADVS. SRI.P.DEEPAK SMT.APARNA RAJAN

2/-

sts

-2-

WP(C)NO.6971/2011

¶25

RESPONDENT(S):

¶26

1. THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O., PIN-673 635.

¶27

2. THE REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O., PIN-673 635.

¶28

R1 & R2 BY SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW,SC,CALICUT UNIVERSITY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN,SC, CALICUT UTY

¶29

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-06-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶30

sts

¶31

WP(C)NO.6971/2011

¶32

APPENDIX

¶33

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶34

P1 COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 25/3/2000

¶35

P1(A) COPY OF THE MEMO INVITING 1ST PETITIONER FOR INTERVIEW DATED 22/6/2007

¶36

P1(B) COPY OF THE MEMO INVITING 2ND PETITIONER FOR INTERVIEW DATED 22/6/2007

¶37

P1(C) COPY OF THE MEMO INVITING 3RD PETITIONER FOR INTERVIEW DATED 22/6/2007

¶38

P1(D) COPY OF THE MEMO INVITING 4TH PETITIONER FOR INTERVIEW DATED 22/6/2007

¶39

P1(E) COPY OF THE MEMO INVITING 5TH PETITIONER FOR INTERVIEW DATED 22/6/2007

¶40

P1(F) COPY OF THE MEMO INVITING 6TH PETITIONER FOR INTERVIEW DATED 22/6/2007

¶41

P1(G) COPY OF THE MEMO INVITING 7TH PETITIONER FOR INTERVIEW DATED 22/6/2007

¶42

P1(H) COPY OF THE MEMO INVITING 8TH PETITIONER FOR INTERVIEW DATED 22/6/2007

¶43

P1(I) COPY OF THE MEMO INVITING 9TH PETITIONER FOR INTERVIEW DATED 22/6/2007

¶44

P2 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C)NO.25897/06 DATED 4/4/2007

¶45

P3 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN INTERIM ORDER IN W.A.NO.1370/07 DATED 12/6/2007

¶46

P4 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23/8/2007

¶47

P4(A) COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18/9/07

¶48

P4(B) COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 15/9/07

¶49

P5(A) COPY OF THE ORDER APPOINTING THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 22/11/2008

¶50

P5(B) COPY OF THE ORDER APPOINTING THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 22/11/2008

¶51

P5(C) COPY OF THE ORDER APPOINTING THE 3RD PETITIONER DATED 22/11/2008

¶52

P5(D) COPY OF THE ORDER APPOINTING THE 3RD PETITIONER DATED 23/1/2009

¶53

sts

¶54

2/-

¶55

-2-

¶56

WP(C)NO.6971/2011

¶57

P5(E) COPY OF THE ORDER APPOINTING THE 4TH PETITIONER DATED 23/1/2009

¶58

P5(F) COPY OF THE ORDER APPOINTING THE 5TH PETITIONER DATED 22/11/2008

¶59

P5(G) COPY OF THE ORDER APPOINTING THE 6TH PETITIONER DATED 22/11/2008

¶60

P5(H) COPY OF THE ORDER APPOINTING THE 7TH PETITIONER DATED 22/11/2008

¶61

P5(I) COPY OF THE ORDER APPOINTING THE 8TH PETITIONER DATED 3/11/2008

¶62

P6 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C)NO.15528/07 DATED 6/2/2009

¶63

P7 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN R.P.NO.573/09 DATED 3/11/2009

¶64

P8 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN SLP.NOS.36480-36484/09 DATED 7/1/11

¶65

P9 COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING DATED 11/2/2011

¶66

P10 COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 18/2/2011

¶67

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO.JUDGE

sts

A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J.

¶72

= = = = = = = = = = = = = WP(C).No.6971 of 2011-V.

¶73

= = = = = = = = = = = = =

¶74

Dated this the 17^th March, 2014.

¶75

J U D G M E N T

¶76

The petitioners have approached this Court inter alia

¶77

seeking the following reliefs:

¶78

a) call for the records leading to Ext.P10 and quash the same to the extent it refuses to appointment to the petitioners as Assistant Grade II by the issuance of a writ of certiorari, or any other such appropriate writ order of direction;

¶79

b) declare that the petitioners are entitled to be appointed as Assistant Grade II in the existing vacancies pursuant to the direction of the Supreme Court;

¶80

c) issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to appoint the petitioners to regular vacancies of Assistant Grade II by absorbing them to existing vacancies;

¶81

d) issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to terminate the service of the petitioners from the post of Assistant Grade II.

¶82

e) call for the records leading to Ext.P9 and quash the same to the extent it permits exclusion of the petitioners alone from the

¶83

WP(C).No.6971/2011-V.

¶84

¶85

benefit of regularisation of service as Assistant Grade II by the issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction;

¶86

The facts leading to the case would show that the

¶87

first respondent University invited application for appointment to the post of Assistant Grade II as per Ext.P1. The petitioners have participated in the selection process and a rank list was published on 14.5.2002. Their names were also included in the rank list. Certain issues have arisen in respect of appointment of persons in the rank list. Ultimately, as per a direction issued by the Supreme Court several persons were appointed on a regular basis from the said rank list. The petitioners were not regularised on the ground that sanctioned strength in the entry cadre was only 250 which is already filled up. The petitioners were aggrieved by the non inclusion of their names in Ext.P10 list, by which several persons were regularised.

¶88

The University has filed counter-affidavit explaining the circumstances under which the University is

¶89

WP(C).No.6971/2011-V.

¶90

¶91

not in a position to appoint all the persons included in Ext.P10. There was an audit objection by which it was indicated that the University cannot regularise all the persons over and above 250 vacancies available. But it is now pointed out that as per the information issued by the Joint Director of Local Fund Audit, Calicut University Audit on 27.4.2013 it is inter alia indicated therein that there is no anomaly if the total strength of Assistants does not exceed 750. It is indicated as follows:

¶92

“The sanctioned strength of assistants as per ratio 1:1:1 in the entry cadre is 250 whereas at present 354 Assistants are working as per Ref(1). But there is no anomaly in it as the total strength of Assistants does not exceed 750.”

¶93

In other words, the Auditor has clearly stated that there is no anomaly in regularising the petitioners provided the total strength of Assistants does not exceed 750. In the above circumstance, I am of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of directing the University to take into consideration the clarification in the Audit report dated

¶94

WP(C).No.6971/2011-V.

¶95

¶96

27.4.2013 and to pass appropriate orders as far as the petitioners are concerned.

¶97

Writ petition is hence disposed of directing the University to consider the clarification in the Audit report dated 27.4.2014 and to pass appropriate orders within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶98

Sd/A.M.SHAFFIQUE, (Judge)

¶99

Kvs/-

¶100

-// True copy //-

¶101

PA TO JUDGE.

Anilkumar C.R v. University of Calicut

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anilkumar C.R v. University of Calicut

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

Parameswaran Vs Jaco

The Tattamangalam Service Co-Operative Bank Vs State of Kerala

Thankamma Gopalan Vs State of Kerala

Muneer N K Vs the Secretary

Bava Vs State of Kerala

N.v.Suhara Vs State of Kerala