Partly allowed

Sreedharan Nair G. v. University of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Jun 2017WP(C)/15951/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought regularisation as security guards. The Court held that regularisation is a matter of policy beyond judicial intervention. However, granting liberty to make a fresh representation considering prior absorptions of similarly situated persons.

What did the court decide?

Granted liberty to petitioners to submit a fresh representation to the Vice Chancellor within 15 days; the Vice Chancellor directed to consider the same and decide within 3 months.

Sreedharan Nair G. Vs University of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE 2017/24TH JYAISHTA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 15951 of 2015 (T)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. SREEDHARAN NAIR G., AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.LATE C.GOVINDAN NAIR, SECUTIRY GUARD, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, CHUNDATHALA VEEDU, VATTAVILA, THIRUMALA P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ANIKUTTAN.A., AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.ACHUTHAN, -DO-- DO-, KAREELAKULANGARA P.O., KARIVETTANKUZHI, ALLEPPEY DISTRICT-690 572. 3. ANILKUMAR.K., AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.KUNJIKRISHNA PILLAI, -DO-- DO-, ANIMON HOUSE, PEMPURAM, KALLUVATHUKKAL P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT, KERALA-691 578. 4. PRADEEPAN.G., AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.GANDADHARAN, -DO-- DO-, KAMALAYALAM, KADUVINAL P.O., VALLIKUNNAM, ALAPPUZHA-690 501. 5. SHANSUDHEEN KUNJU, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.IBRAHIM KUTTY, -DO-- DO-, VALLIYAZHIKATHU VEEDU, ELIPPAKULAM P.O., PALLICKAL VIA, ALAPPUZHA-690 053. 6. HUSSAIN N.K., AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.N.M.KASIM, -DO-- DO-, NELLIMALA HOUSE, MURANI, MALLAPPALLY EAST P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 7. RAJENDRAN K., AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.KUTTAPPAN, -DO-- DO-, VARUN NIVAS, PALLANA P.O., THRIKKUNNAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-690 511.

¶8

SKG

¶9

WP(C).No. 15951 of 2015 (T) ---------------------------8. SURESHKUMAR S., AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.SUKUMARAN, -DO-- DO-, SARASWATHI VILASAM, MAILUMOODU, PANACODE P.O., NEDUMANGAD TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 542. 9. RAJAN.D., AGED 49 YEARS,S/O.DAMODHARAN, -DO-- DO-, KARUNGEL VADAKKATHIL HOUSE, THAMALLACKAL P.O., KUMARAPURAM, HARIPAD, ALAPPUZHA-690 549. 10. PRABHAKARAN K., AGED 48 YEARS, AGED S/O.KRISHNAN, -DO-- DO-, AMPADI, KALKUZHI, KULATHARA, MANCHA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 541. 11. MURALEEDHARAN.R., AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.P.K.RAMAKRISHNAN NAIR, -DO-- DO-, ASWATHY BHAVAN, CHARUMOOD P.O., PIN-690 505. 12. RAJENDRAN NAIR.D., AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.K.DIVAKARAN NAIR, -DO-- DO-, PRASANNA MANDHIRAM, ARASU PARAMBU, NEDUMANGAD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 541. 13. BAHULAYAN NAIR.G., AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.N.GOPINADHAN PILLAI, -DO-- DO-, BABU NIVAS, ANAKODE, KOITHOORKONAM P.O., POTHENCODE VIA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 584. 14. VISWANATHAN PILLAI S.V., AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.LATE K.V.PILLAI, -DO-- DO-, SREE VAISHNAVAM, ENNAKAD POST, PERINGALIPURAM, ALAPPUZHA-689 624. 15. PRASAD.T., AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.LATE P.THANKAYYAN, -DO-- DO-, NULLIKKATTU VEEDU, PAZHAMALA, PERURKADAVILA P.O., NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 124. 16. SUNNY.J., AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.JOHNEY.S., -DO-- DO-, SMRITHY LAYAM, KATTADI P.O., POOYAPALLY,KOLLAM-691 537.

¶10

SKG

¶11

WP(C).No. 15951 of 2015 (T)

¶12

17. OMANAKUTTAN R., AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.LATE RAGHAVAN, -DO-- DO-, VALIYATHU THEKKATHIL, VADAKKUMTHALA P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM-690 536.

¶13

18. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI,

¶14

AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.LATE BHARATHAN PILLAI, -DO-- DO-, THEKKATHIL VEEDU, NEDUMPANA P.O., KANNANALOR VIA, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 576.

¶15

19. VALSALAN.K.,

¶16

AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.KUTTAN,

¶17

-DO-- DO-, SHINU NIVAS, KARIPRAKONAM, PERUMPAZHUTHOOR P.O., NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶18

20. JAYAMOHANAN S.,

¶19

AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.LATE K.SIVANANDAN, -DO-- DO-, KUZHUVILATHEKATHIL, MEENATHU, VALLIKUNNAM P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-690 501.

¶20

21. JAYAKUMAR.T.,

¶21

AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.M.DIVAKARAN NAIR,

¶22

-DO-- DO-, TC18/1611, 50/198(M), PRABHA NIVAS, ANA EDAVAZHY, ARAMADA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. PIN-695 032.

¶23

22. JAYACHANDRAN.S.,

¶24

AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.LATE P.SOMAN,

¶25

-DO-- DO-, VADHANAM, MAMPAZHAKARA, PERUMPAZHUTHOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶26

23. SHIBU.T.

¶27

AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.LATE C.THOMAS, -DO-- DO-, THADAVILA PUTHENVEEDU, NEELESWARAM P.O., KOTTARAKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶28

24. RAJNDERAN PILLAI.S.

¶29

AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.LATE SUNDARAN PILLAI,

¶30

-DO-- DO-, YESHAKAM, KULAGARA YELAGAM, PULIYARAKONAM P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT

¶31

25. VIJAYAKUMAR P.L.,

¶32

AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.LATE PARAMESWARAN PILLAI, -DO-- DO-, VINEEJA BHAVAN, IRRINCHAYAM P.O., VETTAMPALLY, NEDUMANGADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT

¶33

26. SURESH BABU.T.,

¶34

AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.LATE THULASEEDHARAN NAIR, -DO-- DO-, BABU MANDIRAM, EZHUKONE P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 505.

¶35

27. JAYACHANDRAN NAIR, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.K.KUMARAN NAIR, -DO-- DO-, CHERUVALLY, KATTAKKALIL VEEDU, EANIKKARA, KARAKULAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 564

¶36

28. MURALEDHARAN R., AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.LATE RAJAPPAN.V, -DO-- DO-, MAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, THOTTAPPALLI P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688 563.

¶37

29. RAJAN.F.,

¶38

AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.LATE FRANCIS.N, -DO-- DO-, KOLLABHAGATHU VEEDU, MALAYAM, MALAYAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 571.

¶39

30. RAJU.J., AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.LATE JANARDHANAN, -DO-- DO-, ANANDHU HOUSE, T.K.M.C. P.O., PEROOR, KARICODE, KOLLAM.

¶40

BY ADVS.SMT.SUMATHY DANDAPANI (SR.) SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI SMT.ANNA THOMAS

¶41

RESPONDENT(S):

¶42

1. UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 034, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.

¶43

2. DISTRICT SAINIK WEFARE BOARD VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.

¶44

R1 BY SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM, SC, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA

¶45

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-06-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶46

SKG

¶47

WP(C).No. 15951 of 2015 (T)

¶48

APPENDIX

¶49

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶50

P1. PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT DATED 1/8/2011 RENDERED IN WPC NI.4924/2011.

¶51

P2. PHOTOCOPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF THE 12TH METING OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 23/8/2012.

¶52

P3. PHOTOCOPY OF THE MEMO NO.AD.A.II/2/13 DATED 27/11/2013 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITONER

¶53

P3(A) PHOTOCOPY OF THE MEMO NO.AD.A.II/2/13 DATED 27/11/2013 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT ISSUED TO THE 1ST & 2ND PETITIONER

¶54

P3(B) PHOTOCOPY OF THE MEMO NO.AD.A.II/2/13 DATED 27/11/2013 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT ISSUED TO THE 1ST, 3RD PETITIONER

¶55

P3(C) PHOTOCOPY OF THE MEMO NO.AD.A.II/2/13 DATED 27/11/2013 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT ISSUED TO THE 4TH PETITONER

¶56

P3(D) PHOTOCOPY OF THE MEMO NO.AD.A.II/2/13 DATED 27/11/2013 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT ISSUED TO THE 16TH PETITIONER

¶57

P3(E) PHOTOCOPY OF THE MEMO NO.AD.A.II/2/13 DATED 27/11/2013 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT ISSUED TO THE 17TH PETITIONER

¶58

P4. PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER VIDE REF. NO.7506/EMPLOY.1/2013/D.S.W DATED 6/6/2013.

¶59

P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS PAPER REPORT PUBLISHED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY, DATED 8.12.2015

¶60

P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 10.12.2015

¶61

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

¶62

R1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 26.04.2015 ENTERED INTO BY THE 1ST PETITIONER WITH THE 1ST RESPONDENT

¶63

R1(b) TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 24.08.2007 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER

¶64

SKG

¶65

WP(C).No. 15951 of 2015 (T)

¶66

R1(c) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 19.11.2014 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE HON'BLE CHANCELLOR OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY

¶67

R1(d) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 04.02.2011 ISSUED BY GOVERNMENT OF KERALA TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT

/TRUE COPY/

P.S. TO JUDGE

SKG

“CR”

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN,J.

¶73

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 15951 of 2015

¶74

- - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 14^th day of June, 2017

¶75

The petitioners assert to be employed as

¶76

Security Guards in the services of the Kerala University from the year 2000-2006. They admit that their engagement is on contract and is in the nature of casual/daily employment.

¶77

The petitioners say that they entered the contract with the University, being sponsored by the District Sainik Welfare Board since all of them are retirees from the Indian Army. Their grievance is that in spite of the fact that the University have taken steps for regularisation of their services by conducting an interview, no further action was taken thereafter in furtherance of such process to appoint and regularise them. They have, therefore, filed this writ petition praying, inter alia, that follow

¶78

W.P.(C) No. 15951 of 2015

¶79

-: 2 :-

¶80

up action be directed to be taken by the University pursuant to Ext.P2 minutes of the Syndicate, which according to the petitioners, had resolved to regularise them.

¶81

I have heard Smt. Sumathi Dandapani, the

¶82

learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri. Millu Dandapani, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. Thomas Abraham, the learned Standing Counsel for the 1^st respondent University.

¶83

Smt. Sumathi Dandapani, the learned Senior Counsel informs me that there are 60 vacancies available in the services of the 1^st respondent University to accommodate Security Guards. She asserts that all the petitioners were recommended by

¶84

the District Sainik Welfare Board, the 2^nd respondent herein, noticing that they are all qualified and physically capable of discharging their duties as Security Guards in the best possible manner. She

¶85

W.P.(C) No. 15951 of 2015

¶86

-: 3 :-

¶87

asserts that several instances have been pointed by

¶88

the petitioners in this writ petition, wherein similarly situated persons were absorbed by the University by following a procedure of written test and interview. Mrs Dandapani asserts that even in the case of the petitioners, the University had conducted a procedure in the form of a written test and interview, which culminated in Ext.P2 preliminary minutes, that was adopted by the Syndicate of the University in its 12^th Meeting dated 23.08.2012. The petitioners, based on Ext.P2, have prayed that follow up action be directed to be taken by the University to complete the process so as to lead to their appointment and absorption.

¶89

I notice that a counter affidavit has been filed by the University. The fact that the process of interview of the petitioners were conducted by the University is admitted. However, it is stated

¶90

W.P.(C) No. 15951 of 2015

¶91

-: 4 :-

¶92

therein that after the interview was completed, the Vice Chancellor of the University cancelled the same finding certain procedural irregularity to have been committed in conducting the interview and that he had called for a report with regard to the interview and the allegations of irregularities from the concerned authorities. A copy of the said report, thus placed before the Vice Chancellor, has been placed on record and appended to the counter affidavit as Ext.R1(c). In Ext.R1(c), I notice that the singular allegation is that Security Guards engaged on daily wages/casual basis are appointed based on a contract executed with the specific covenant that their employment shall not lead to any claim for future appointment in the University. It also says that the existing Security Guards on daily wages/casual basis were permitted to continue on the basis of such terms, provided there was need for

¶93

W.P.(C) No. 15951 of 2015

¶94

-: 5 :-

¶95

their service. The Vice Chancellor of the University appears to take the position that since such engagement will not entitle them to any claim for permanent appointment, they need not have been put through a process of interview for such purpose since any such process becomes completely redundant and superfluous.

¶96

I have considered the rival submissions at

¶97

the Bar as well as the materials and documents available on record. There is no doubt that the petitioners were subjected to a process intended for their regularisation which is recorded in Ext.P2 minutes. However, it is also not in dispute that the Vice Chancellor of the University cancelled that process for the reasons recorded above. The question as to whether the petitioners or such other persons, who are employed on daily wages/casual basis, have to be regularised is a matter of pure policy to be

¶98

W.P.(C) No. 15951 of 2015

¶99

-: 6 :-

¶100

adopted by the University. It is now settled by various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that while dealing with questions of policy considerations and matters in the realm of administration policy, the jurisdiction of this Court, acting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is to a large extent barricaded and constrained (see for support - Tata Cellular v. Union of India [AIR 1996 SC 11 ] and Balaco Employees Union (Regd.) v. Union of India and Others (2002 [2] SCC 333]. Viewed from this angle, I am certain that I will not be justified in granting

¶101

the reliefs, as has been sought for by the petitioners. However, this does not mean that they should be left without any remedy at all.

¶102

I notice that in similar factual

¶103

circumstances, this Court had earlier delivered a judgment, a copy of which is appended to this writ

¶104

W.P.(C) No. 15951 of 2015

¶105

-: 7 :-

¶106

petition as Ext.P1. Another learned Judge of this Court had noticed all these assertions of similarly placed persons and had directed the University to take a decision regarding their regularisation.

¶107

Mrs Dandapani, the learned Senior Counsel tells me that pursuant to the directions contained in Ext.P1, the petitioners therein and certain other persons were subsequently regularised. She says that her clients are also, therefore, entitled to the similar treatment at the hands of the University.

¶108

If, as stated by the learned Senior

¶109

Counsel, the University had earlier made absorptions from persons similarly situated like the petitioners, there is some force in what

¶110

Mrs Dandapani submits. However, this does not mean that the petitioners would have any vested right or that the University would be forensically obligated to regularise them.

¶111

W.P.(C) No. 15951 of 2015

¶112

In the case at hand, I see that the Vice Chancellor of the University has deemed it appropriate and necessary to cancel the process, that was initiated for the purpose of regularisation of the petitioners. This again is a matter of policy, which the Vice Chancellor had deemed it appropriate to adopt, taking into account the reasons stated in Ext.R1(c). I do not think that this Court would be legally permitted to enter into these areas since these are matters which are at best left to experts to consider and decide. However, since the petitioners assert that similarly situated persons have already been absorbed, it is only appropriate that they may be given an opportunity to make a representation before the Vice Chancellor of the 1^st respondent University detailing

¶113

all their claims and requesting indulgence of the University for regularisation, taking into account

¶114

W.P.(C) No. 15951 of 2015

¶115

-: 9 :-

¶116

the fact that they have been working on daily wages/contract basis for the last more than 15 to 17 years.

¶117

In such circumstances and the reasons that I have recorded above, I order this writ petition granting liberty to the petitioners to make a fresh representation before the Vice Chancellor of the 1^st respondent University making all their claims and enumerating all their contentions, including those that have been taken in this writ petition, if they are so advised and seek that they be regularised in a manner according to law. I direct the petitioners, if they are so desirous, to make a representation within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt

¶118

of a copy of this judgment and if such a representation is received by the Vice Chancellor of the University within the time granted herein, he will be obligated to consider the same, taking into

¶119

W.P.(C) No. 15951 of 2015

¶120

-: 10 :-

¶121

account Ext.P1 judgment of this Court, as well as

¶122

the contentions of the petitioners relating to their regularisation, after affording an opportunity of

¶123

being heard to one of them, within a period of three months thereafter.

¶124

This writ petition is thus ordered.

¶125

Sd/-

¶126

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

¶127

DST

¶128

//True copy//

¶129

P.A. To Judge

Sreedharan Nair G. v. University of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sreedharan Nair G. v. University of Kerala

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

T.P James Vs Ernakulam District Co-Op.Bank Ltd.

N.Krishnan Nampoothiri Vs the Travancore Devaswom Board

The Manager, Kpes Higher Secondary School, Kayakkodi Vs Dr.Usha Titus

Dr.Mary Mathew Vs Greater Cochin Development Authority

V.P.Ibrahim Kutty Vs Hotel Park Residency

K.Karunakaran Vs the Assistant Excise Commisioner