Allowed

The Executive Committee of Kerala Agricultural University v. G. Kunjachan

Kerala HC18 Oct 2016RP/367/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Review petitions were filed challenging the grant of regularisation to laborers employed after 01.01.1995. The Court noted that prior relief was contingent on appointments after the cutoff date. Finding an error apparent on the record, the Court allowed the review petitions, recalling the judgment regarding these petitioners.

What did the court decide?

The review petitions were allowed recalling the judgment in W.P.(C) No. 7154/2009. The writ petitions were posted for hearing.

The Executive Committee of Kerala Agricultural… — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/26TH ASWINA, 1938

¶5

RP.No. 367 of 2016 (P)

¶6

WP(C) 18946/2010 DATED 22-02-2016 ---------------

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3:

¶8

1. THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY THE, VICE CHANCELLOR, K.A.U.POST, VELLANIKARA TRISSUR-680656.

¶9

2. THE REGISTRAR, KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, POST, VELLANIKKARA, THRISSUR 680656.

¶10

3. THE PROFESSOR & HEAD, RICE RESEARCH STATION, MONKOMBU, ALAPPUZHA-688502.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA,SC,KERALA A

¶12

RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONERS & ADDL. R4::

¶13

1. G. KUNJACHAN, LABOURER, RICE RESEARCH STATION, MONKOMBU, RESIDING AT 26-CHIRA, THEKKEKARA P.O. MONKOMBU, ALAPPUZHA.-690 107.

¶14

2. P.K.RAMESAN, LABOURER, RICE RESEARCH STATION, MONKOMBU, RESIDING AT ATTICHIRA, PUNNAKKUNNAM P.O. ALAPPUZHA 688 001.

¶15

3. T.VASANTHI, LABOURER, RICE RESEARCH STATION, MONKOMBU, RESIDING AT, KIZHAKKEVENAT, THEKKEKARA P.O. ALAPPUZHA 690 107.

¶16

4. C.PANCHAMI, LABOURER, RICE RESEARCH STATION, MONKOMBU, RESIDING AT PARASSERI, LAKSHAM VEEDU, PULINKUNNU P.O. KAYALPURAM., ALAPPUZHA 688 504.

¶17

-2-

¶18

-2-

¶19

RP.NO.367 OF 2016:

¶20

5. P.V.LALITHAMMA, LABOURER RICE RESEARCH STATION, MONCOMBU, RESIDING AT, KANNAMPALLY HOUSE, PULINKUNNU P.O, KAYALPURAM.

¶21

6. P.MALATHI, LABOURER, RICE RESEARCH STATION, MONKOMBU, RESIDING AT EDANATTUKUNNAM,, THEKKEKARA P.O. ALAPPUZHA 690 107.

¶22

7. K.BINDAMMA, LABOURER, RICE RESEARCH STATION, MONKOMBU, RESIDING AT COLONY NO.3, CHEKKEKARA P.O., ALAPPUZHA - 690 107.

¶23

8. M.VIJAYAMMA, LABOURER, RICE RESEARCH STATION, MONKOMBU, RESIDING AT 84-CHIRA, THEKKEKARA P.O. ALAPPUZHA 690 107.

¶24

9. M.D MINIMOL, LABOURER, RICE RESEARCH STATION, MONKOMBU, RESIDING AT, SWAPNA VIHAR, THEKKEKARA P.O, ALAPPUZHA - 690 107.

¶25

10. A.V.RAJAMMA, LABOURER, RICE RESEARCH STATION, MONKOMBU, RESIDING AT C.K.SADANAM, CHAMPAKULAM P.O. NADUBHAGAM, ALLAPPUZHA.- 688 505.

¶26

11. N.V.MANIYAN, NALATHARAYIL HOUSE, RICE RESEARCH STATION, MONKOMBU, RESIDING AT THEKKEKKARA, MONKOMPU P.O. ALAPPUZHA - 688 001.

¶27

12. THE KERALA VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCES UNIVERSITY, POOKKOTTUR, WYNAD - 676 517, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.

¶28

R1-R11, BY SRI.P.V.JAYACHANDRAN R12, BY SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI

¶29

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18-10-2016, ALONG WITH RP.NO. 373/2016, AND CONNECTED CASES THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶30

K.V.

¶31

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

¶32

R.P.No.367 of 2016-P in W.P.(C) No.18946 of 2010, R.P.No.373 of 2016-J in W.P.(C) No.33532 of 2009, R.P.No.376 of 2016-J in W.P.(C) No.14894 of 2010 R.P.No.380 of 2016-A in W.P.(C) No.4604 of 2010 &

¶33

R.P.No.788 of 2016 in W.P.(C) No.1189 of 2016

¶34

Dated: 18^th October, 2016

¶35

O R D E R

¶36

The Review Petitions are filed in the above writ petitions on the ground that the writ petitioners were regularised on the basis of specific orders issued and they cannot have any claim for regularisation on the basis of Ext.P1 Government Order dated 24.11.1999, which was implemented as per Ext.P2; which would not confer any benefit on the petitioners.

¶37

The contention is taken up on the ground that the implementation of the Government Order, as per Ext.P2 dated 13.03.2000, permitted only those persons who were in the list as on 01.01.1995 to be regularised

¶38

R.P.No.367 of 2016-P in W.P.(C) No.18946 of 2010, R.P.No.373 of 2016-J in W.P.(C) No.33532 of 2009, R.P.No.376 of 2016-J in W.P.(C) No.14894 of 2010 R.P.No.380 of 2016-A in W.P.(C) No.4604 of 2010 & R.P.No.788 of 2016 in W.P.(C) No.1189 of 2016

¶39

-2-

¶40

and who had not completed 55 years of age as on 24.11.1999, to be regularised. The petitioners were employed after 01.01.1995. The petitioners were subsequently appointed and then regularised by various orders during 2009, which cannot be related back to the regularisation ordered by the Government by Ext.P1 dated 24.11.1999. It is also submitted that the reliance placed on the Judgment in W.P.(C) No.7154/2009 is bad.

¶41

A review filed against the Judgment in W.P.(C) No.7154/2009 has been dismissed today, but, however, what assumes significance is that the dismissal of the said Review Petition was due to the fact that the writ petitioners therein had approached this Court in the year 2000 itself, claiming regularisation on the basis of

¶42

¶43

-3-

¶44

the Government Order at Ext.P1 dated 24.11.1999, in

¶45

which original petition, numbered as O.P. No.12837/2000, a judgment dated 20.02.2008 was passed, declaring their right to be regularised as per the Government Order dated 24.11.1999. It was in such circumstance that the relief of regularisation, notionally, from the date on which vacancies arose, was issued. It has also been clarified that such regularisaton can be only to vacancies that arose after their initial date of appointment, since, specifically it was found that the petitioners there, were persons who were appointed after 01.01.1995.

¶46

In the context of what is stated above, the notional regularisation granted to the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.7154/2009 cannot be granted to the writ

¶47

¶48

-4-

¶49

petitioners herein who are the respondents in the Review Petition. The error pointed out by the University, being one apparent on the face of the record, the Review Petitions are allowed recalling the Judgment.

¶50

The writ petitions shall be posted for hearing in accordance with roster.

¶51

Sd/-

¶52

K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶53

jjj 18/10/2016

The Executive Committee of Kerala Agricultural University v. G. Kunjachan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Executive Committee of Kerala Agricultural University v. G. Kunjachan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sulochana Amma Vs the Elamkulam Grama Panchayath

Entheenkutty Vs the District Collector and Others

Thankamani Vs the Tribunal for Local Self Govt.

Kerala Agricultural University Vs T.Godwin

Gigi Mathew Vs State of Kerala

Jacob George Vs Tomy Abraham