Allowed

Khadeeja E. v. University of Calicut

Kerala HC18 Dec 2017WP(C)/5902/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the university's appointment of respondents to category change posts without considering petitioners' earlier option requests. The court directed the university to grant category change in two vacancies and determine seniority.

What did the court decide?

Directed the University to grant category change in two vacancies and determine seniority within two months.

Khadeeja E. Vs University of Calicut — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 5902 of 2017

¶6

PETITIONER(S)

¶7

1 KHADEEJA E. "HAMD', CHERUVANNUR, PALATTIPPADDAM ROAD, OPP. GOVT. HSS, CHERUVANNUR, KOLATHARA P.O., PIN: 673 655.

¶8

2 SAJNA.M SAVIDHAM, KOHINOOR, THENJIPALAM, MALAPPURAM 673 636.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.M.P.SREEKRISHNAN SRI.A.MUHAMMED MUSTHAFA

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O., MALAPPURAM 676 505.

¶12

THE REGISRTRAR UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O., MALAPPURAM 676 505.

¶13

SAJITH KUMAR T.C, KANNUVAYAL KUNIYIL (H), MADAPPALLY COLLEGE P.O., VATAKARA (VIA), KOZHIKODE 673 102

¶14

BINDU P. NADUTHODIPARAMBU, CHELEMBRA P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 673 634.

¶15

LATHA P CHELUVEETTIL HOUSE, PULIKKAL P.O., MALAPPURAM 673 637.

¶16

PBS

¶17

WP(C).No. 5902 of 2017

¶18

REENABAN THALAPPIL, W/O.ABDUL HAKEEM, K.K.KUNNATHODI KINATTINGAL, KONDOTTU MELANGADI P.O., MALAPPURAM 673 648.

¶19

VINCY THEDDEUS CHELLOTTE ESTATE, CHUNDALE P.O., WAYANAD 673 123.

¶20

RAISY P.V RAIRA HOUSE, NR.CHITHRA TALKIES, KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE 673 305.

¶21

MANJULA P CHERUKAYIL HOUSE, PUTHANPEEDIKA P.O., THRISSUR 680 642.

¶22

R1-R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC

¶23

R3 & R7 BY ADV. SRI.K.A.MANZOOR ALI

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18-12-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

PBS

¶26

WP(C).No. 5902 of 2017 (K)

¶27

APPENDIX

¶28

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶29

EXT.P1	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION, DATED 23/9/2013
EXT.P2	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION, DATED 30/11/2013
EXT.P3	A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED, 20/3/2015 IN WPC 7738/2015
EXT.P4	A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 1/3/2016 IN WPC 7738/2015
EXT.P5	A TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR CALLING FOR WILLINGNESS, DATED 12/1/2017
EXT.P6	A TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF APPOINTMENT, DATED 3/10/2016
EXT.P7	A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTE TO THE SYNDICATE ON THE BASIS OF EXHIBIT P6 WAS ISSUED DATED 26/8/2016
EXT.P8	A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTE TO SYNDICATE DATED 18/10/2016
EXT.P9	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 2/2/2017
EXT.P10	A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION, DATED 23/12/2016
EXT.P11	A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT, DATED 7/2/2017 IN COC 1756/2016 IN WPC 7738/2015
EXT.P12	A TRUE COPY OF THE SYNDICATE DECISION, DATED 15/12/2016
EXT. P13	A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION, DATED 02.03.2015
EXT. P13(A)	A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY RECEIVED TO EXHIBIT P13, DATED 30.03.2015
RESPONDENT'S E	XHIBITS NIL /TRUE COPY/

¶30

PA TO JUDGE

¶31

PBS

¶32

ANU SIVARAMAN, J.

¶33

W.P(C).No. 5902 of 2017

¶34

Dated this the 18^th day of December, 2017

¶35

JUDGMENT

¶36

The petitioners have approached this Court with the

¶37

following prayers:

¶38

“i. issue a writ of certiorari quashing Exhibits P5, P12 as such and Exhibit P9 to the extent it grants category change promotion to respondents 3 to 9.

¶39

ii. declare that the petitioners are entitled to category change promotion to the post of Assistant Grade II as on the date of Exhibits P1 and P2, the date on which they have exercised option as per the Calicut University First Ordinances, 1978 and the date of occurrence of vacancy to the post of Assistant grade ii in the University of Calicut.

¶40

iii. issue a writ of mandamus directing the University to grant category change promotion to the petitioners as on the date of Exhibit P1 and P2.

¶41

2 . The petitioners are working as Computer Assistant

¶42

Grade-I. They joined service of the 1^st respondent University on

¶43

22.7.2010 and 24.7.2010 respectively. They had opted for category change on 23.9.2013 and 30.11.2013 respectively.

¶44

¶45

WP(C).5902/17

¶46

They contended that they were entitled to be granted category change taking note of the date of the options submitted as per Exhibits P1 and P2. It was stated that the filling up of the available vacancies of Assistants earmarked for category change could be only after considering the claims raised by the petitioners.

¶47

They had filed W.P(C).No.7738 of 2015 seeking category change taking note of the date of their options. By an interim order dated 20.3.2015, eight vacancies of Assistants were directed to be kept vacant to accommodate the petitioners in the said writ petition. It is stated that thereafter, by Exhibit P4 judgment, the writ petition was disposed of directing the University to consider the claim raised by the petitioners for category change in accordance with the Calicut University First Ordinance. While so, the Registrar of the University issued memos and appointed Assistants by granting category change from the ranked list prepared without considering the claim of the petitioners. It is stated that the Calicut University First Ordinance providing for category change do not provide that the University has to call for willingness for category change. An employee entitled to category change has to submit an option and the request for

¶48

¶49

WP(C).5902/17

¶50

category change is considered with reference to the date of such option. It is therefore contended by the petitioners that they had submitted their options by Exhibits P1 and P2 and filling up of the vacancies of Assistants without considering their options and after preparing a list on the basis of a memo calling for willingness from all available candidates would amount to violation of the provisions of the Ordinance.

¶51

A counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 1 and 2. It is contended therein that the First Ordinance provides for category change of Typists as Assistants. It is stated that Typists without degree who have completed five years of service and Typists with degree who have completed three years of service shall be allowed category change as Assistant Grade-II. It is submitted that it is not a direct line of promotion. It is stated that pursuant to Government order dated 5.1.2008, the Government had prevented promotions and category change with effect from 1.7.2004 as part of the implementation of 2004 pay revision order. However, this Court had held that provisions of a pay revision order cannot override the ordinances and directed consideration of the claim of the petitioners for category change in view of the First Ordinance. It is stated that a circular had been issued inviting willingness

¶52

¶53

WP(C).5902/17

¶54

for category change from the post of Computer Assistants for the post of Assistant Grade II. It is stated that the petitioners had not expressed their willingness for category change pursuant to that circular. It is therefore stated that a list was prepared on the basis of seniority of persons who preferred their willingness for category change and the position of the petitioners being 14 and 12 respectively in the seniority list of Computer Assistants, their claim for category change in accordance with Exhibits P1 and P2 cannot be considered favourably.

¶55

I have considered the contentions advanced on either side. It is not in dispute before me that though the petitioners have opted for category change as per Exhibits P1 and P2, the University had not considered their claim for category change on the ground that the Government had directed that such category change need not be granted. This Court in Exhibit P4 judgment had held that the Government order to the extent it restricts category change is against the provisions of the First Ordinance. The claim of the petitioners for category change was therefore directed to be considered.

¶56

The learned Standing Counsel for the University contends that out of the eight vacancies kept vacant for filling

¶57

¶58

WP(C).5902/17

¶59

up by category change, only three persons included in the list prepared by the University in pursuance of the memo requiring willingness have assumed charge. As of now, five vacancies are available.

¶60

In the above circumstances, there will be a direction to the respondents to immediately pass orders granting category change to the petitioners in two of the available vacancies.

¶61

The petitioners have a specific case that they had made requests for category change by Exhibits P1 and P2 and that they are entitled to be granted category change on the basis of the said requests made by them. This is an aspect which has to be considered by the University in accordance with law. The petitioners' claim for category change had been upheld by Exhibit P4 judgment. In the above view of the matter, the question whether the petitioners would be entitled to seniority over the contesting respondents, who had submitted their options for category change much later than the petitioners, is to be considered by the University. If the petitioners make a request for granting them seniority in the post of assistants on the basis of the earlier options and representations preferred by them for category change, the University shall consider the said request with notice to

¶62

WP(C).5902/17 6

¶63

respondents 3 to 9 as well as any other person likely to be affected and pass orders strictly in conformity with the First Ordinance and the requirements therein. Orders accommodating the petitioners as Assistants shall be passed by the University within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Orders with regard to the inter se seniority of the petitioners and the contesting respondents shall be passed by the University within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶64

The writ petition is ordered accordingly.

¶65

ANU SIVARAMAN

¶66

vgs20/12

Khadeeja E. v. University of Calicut

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khadeeja E. 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

Royal Blue Hotels Vs State of Kerala

Nijimol M.V Vs the Kannur University

Devadas Sukumaran Vs the State of Kerala

Sainulabudden Vs Sree Prakash

Deputy Director of Collegiate Education Vs Dr.Sunil Kumar P.

Mohammed Safarulla K.K Vs Nilambur Block Panchayat