Dismissed

T.Muhammed Ali v. the Executive Committee

Kerala HC24 Nov 2016RP/965/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court dismissed review petitions and leave applications seeking regularization of service for casual employees. The bench held that, following the Supreme Court in Umadevi, casual employees have no legal right to regularization, rendering the petitions untenable and the delay inexcusable.

What did the court decide?

Disposal of review petitions and applications for condonation of delay rejected.

T.Muhammed Ali Vs the Executive Committee — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/3RD AGRAHAYANA, 1938

¶5

RP.No. 965 of 2016 (N)

¶6

----------------------------------(AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C).NO. 10138/2013 DATED 21-05-2013)

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONERS IN WP(C):

¶8

1. T. MUHAMMED ALI, S/O MOITHU HAJI, RESIDING AT THONICKKADAVAN HOUSE, THIRUVIZHAMKUNNU P.O, PALAKKAD.

¶9

2. M. ABBAS, S/O MOITHUPPA, RESIDING AT MATTAN HOUSE,THIRUVIZHAMKUNNU P.O., PALAKAD.

¶10

3. A.SIDDIQUE, S/O HAMZA, RESIDING AT ACHIPARA HOUSE, KACHERIPARAMBU P.O.,

¶11

PALAKAD.

¶12

4. C.P THRESIAMMA, D/O CHACKO, RESIDING AT VALOCHALIL, THIRUVAZHAMKUNNU P.O, PALAKAD.

¶13

5. K. KUNCHAN, S/O PACHU EZHUTHACHAN, RESIDING AT THIRUVAZHAMKUNNU P.O., PALAKAD.

¶14

6. A. MUHAMMED, S/O HAMZA, RESIDING AT ACHIPPPARA HOUSE,

¶15

KACHERIPARAMBU P.O., PALAKAD.

¶16

7. ACHANKUNJU P.C, S/O CHACKO, THIRUVAZHAMKUNNU P.O, PALAKAD.

¶17

8. SUHARA K, D/O HASSAN, THIRUVAZHAMKUNNU P.O., PALAKAD.

¶18

9. K. KRISHNANKUTTY, S/O CHAMI, RESIDING AT KUNNUMMEL HOUSE, KACHERIPARAMBU P.O.,

¶19

PALAKAD

¶20

10. ARAVINDAKSHAN M, RESIDING AT MUNDAIKOTTIL HOUSE, BEEMANADU P.O., ALLANALOOR, PALAKAD.

¶21

BY ADV. SRI.P.V.JAYACHANDRAN

2/-

-2-

RP.NO.965/2016

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

¶26

1. THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE CHANCELLOR, KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, K.A.U POST, VELLANIKKARA -680 654.

¶27

2. THE REGISTRAR, KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY POST,

¶28

VELLANIKKARA, TRISSUR -680 654

¶29

3. THE REGISTRAR, KERALA VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCES UNIVERSITY, POOKOD, WYNAD, PIN-673 576

¶30

4. THE ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR & HEAD, LIVE STOCK RESEARCH STATION, THIRUVIZHAMKUNNU -678 601.

¶31

R1 & R2 BY SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA,SC, R3 & R4 BY SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI

¶32

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24-11-2016, ALONG WITH RP.NO. 920/2016 AND RP.NO. 958/2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

sts

RP.NO.965/2016

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:

¶37

ANNEX A COPY OF THE GO (MS) NO.326/99/AGRI DATED 24/11/99 ISSUED BY THE STATE OF KERALA

¶38

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

sts

A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.

¶43

C.M.Appl.No.461 of 2016 in R.P.No.920 of 2016, C.M.Appl.No.482 of 2016 in R.P.No. 958 of 2016, C.M.Appl.No.488 of 2016 in R.P.No.965 of 2016

¶44

¶45

R.P.Nos.920, 958 & 965 of 2016

¶46

Dated this the 24^th day of November, 2016

¶47

ORDER

¶48

C.M.Appl.Nos.461, 482 and 488 of 2016 are the applications

¶49

to condone delay of 1212 days in filing the review petitions.

¶50

Petitioners claim that the judgments are liable to be reviewed. The main reason stated in the review petitions is that the review petitioners are to be regularized in service. Even according to the petitioners, they were only casual employees who had not been appointed by the due process of law. Under such circumstances, I do not think that the petitioners are entitled to seek review of the judgment.

¶51

The issue with reference to the right of the casual employees to get appointment, has already been decided by the Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi and others [2006 (4) SCC (1)]. Under

¶52

such circumstances, there is no legal right to demand that the

¶53

C.M.Appl.Nos.461,482 & 488/2016 & R.P.Nos.920, 958 & 965 of 2016

¶54

-2-

¶55

review petitioners should be regularized in service. Further, the delay is explained by the petitioners stating that Writ Appeals were filed which are later withdrawn. While disposing of the writ appeals, no provision has been made by which the Division Bench permitting the petitioners to file a review. Even otherwise, as already indicated, the right of the casual employees had already been crystallized in the judgment in Umadevi (supra) .Under such circumstances, there is no reason why the delay should be condoned or the review petitions be entertained.

¶56

Accordingly, applications for delay condonation as well as the review petitions are dismissed.

¶57

Sd/A.M. SHAFFIQUE JUDGE

¶58

Scl/24.11.2016

T.Muhammed Ali v. the Executive Committee

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Muhammed Ali v. the Executive Committee

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

The Principal, Ezhuthachan College of Pharmaceutical Sciences Vs Kerala University of Health & Allied Sciences

Jose T.J Vs Mahatma Gandhi University

M/S Glass Palace Vs Commercial Tax Officer-Ii

Sreekumar.K Vs Uco Bank

L.Krishna Prabhu Vs Tahsildar and Assessing Authority

Gracy Jose Vs Kseb Represented by Its Secretary