Dismissed

Suji v. Vs Dr.M.Jayaprakash

Kerala HC11 Aug 2017Con.Case(C)/2053/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court disposed of contempt proceedings instituted against the Registrar of the University of Kerala. The Court held that the termination of the petitioner was not contempt as the post she held was not duly sanctioned, and the work covered by her role had been absorbed by permanently recruited assistants.

What did the court decide?

Contempt proceedings closed; petitioner's case for future consideration favourably noted.

Suji v. Vs Dr.M.Jayaprakash — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST 2017/20TH SRAVANA, 1939 Con. Case(C). No. 2053 of 2016 (S) IN WA.1796/2016 -----------------------(JUDGMENT DATED 27-09-2016 IN W.A. NO.1796/2016)

¶5

PETITIONER(S):

¶6

SUJI V., W/O. BHADRA KUMAR R., AGED 49 YEARS, "PRANAVAM", NEAR HEALTH CENTRE, PANGAPPARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 581.

¶7

BY ADVS.SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY SMT.N.SANTHA SRI.K.A.BALAN SRI.V.VARGHESE SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO SRI.S.A.ANAND SMT.K.N.REMYA SMT.L.ANNAPOORNA SRI.S.DEEPAK

¶8

RESPONDENT(S):

¶9

DR. M. JAYAPRAKASH, (AGE AND NAME OF FATHER NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), REGISTRAR (IN-CHARGE), UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN:695034.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM, SC, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA

¶11

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-08-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

Con. Case(C). No. 2053 of 2016

¶13

APPENDIX

¶14

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:-

¶15

ANNEX.-I:	CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WRIT APPEAL NO.1796/2016 OF THIS HON'BKE COURT.
ANNEX.-II:	COPY OF LAWYER NOTICE DATED 29.10.2016 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT.
ANNEX.-III:	COPY OF POSTAL RECEIPT IN RELATION TO ANNEXURE-II.
ANNEX.-IV:	COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT IN RELATION TO ANNEXURE-II.
ANNEX.-V:	COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER NO.AD.A1.3.1662/12.2 DATED 02.12.2014 OF THE REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA.
ANNEX.-VI:	COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER NO.ADA1.3 4531/5.7 DATED 25.05.2016 OF THE REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA.
ANNEX.-VII:	COPY OF THE MEMO NO.AD.A.1.1.1508/2016.10 DATED 25.08.2016 OF THE REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA.
ANNEX.-VIII:	COPY OF MEMO NO. AD. A.1/3/43326/2017 DATED 19.01.2017 OF THE REGISTRAR.
ANNEX.-IX:	COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER NO.AD.D1/3/7361/2017 DATED 08.03.2017 OF THE REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA.

¶16

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:-

¶17

R1:- COPY OF THE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT CUM AGREEMENT EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER WITH THE UNIVERSITY on 19.01.2017.

KRJ

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH, C.J. &

¶22

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., J.

¶23

- - - - Cont. Case (C) No. 2053 of 2016 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 11^th day of August, 2017

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

Navaniti Prasad Singh, C.J.

¶26

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent, University of Kerala, at length, and with their consent, we are disposing of this contempt proceedings at this stage itself.

¶27

The petitioner was taken in as a Data Entry Operator by the University of Kerala in the year 2010. Earlier, she was working as Assistant Grade-II on provisional basis having been sponsored through employment exchange, which engagement was terminated on 14.06.2008. This contractual engagement as Data entry Operator continued for sometime. But, when it was finally not regularised, in the year 2014, the writ petition was filed claiming continuance and regularisation. Both were rejected by the learned single Judge and the writ petition was dismissed.

¶28

The matter was taken in appeal. The Division Bench in the intra court appeal agreed with the view of the learned single Judge,

¶29

Cont. Case (C) : 2053/16

¶30

-:2:-

¶31

but on equitable considerations, directed that the writ petitioner/ appellant be permitted to continue on contractual basis till a permanent arrangement for the said post is made.

¶32

Notwithstanding the aforesaid, the petitioner was subsequently terminated. This is how, these proceedings for contempt were taken up on the allegation that the post of Data Entry Operator has neither been advertised for recruitment nor filled up, and as such terminating the petitioner was in defiance of the orders of the Division Bench.

¶33

Sri. Thomas Abraham, learned standing counsel for the University, submits that, in fact, there is no post duly sanctioned for Data Entry Operator. The University has only four such posts. The substantive post is Assistants, whose part of job profile includes data entry operations. There had been no recruitment on permanent basis with respect to Assistants. Thus, there has been large scale vacancies and therefore the data entry operations were being severely affected in the University. Accordingly, as a stopgap arrangement for the work of data entry, the petitioner and their likes were engaged on contract basis.

¶34

Cont. Case (C) : 2053/16

¶35

-:3:-

¶36

Now, through Public Service Commission, almost all the posts of Assistants have been filled up and accordingly, there is no requirement of separate Data Entry Operators, which are all occupied by permanent appointees. Whereas, from the contractual Data Entry Operators, about four persons have been continued. They were all physically challenged categories. Thus, there is no requirement of persons like the petitioner and the post of Assistants having been filled up by regular appointment, the termination of the petitioner and her likes cannot be taken to be contempt or in defiance. In that view of the matter, we are satisfied that the conduct of the respondent would not attract contempt proceedings. These proceedings are accordingly closed.

¶37

We may further add that in future, if the University requires Data Entry Operator, considering petitioner's experience, her case may be considered favourably.

¶38

Sd/Navaniti Prasad Singh, Chief Justice Sd/Raja Vijayaraghavan V., Judge

¶39

krj.11/8

Suji v. Vs Dr.M.Jayaprakash

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suji v. Vs Dr.M.Jayaprakash

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

M.K.Biju Vs T.K.Jose

Axis Bank Ltd. Vs Salim S.H

Chief of Army Staff Vs v.Tulsi Nair

Aleema Vs Dr.S. Jayasankar

T.M.Sebastian Vs Noufal a, Sub Inspector of Police

Baiju.Y.P Vs Union of India