Allowed

Pushpalatha E.V. v. the Kerala Agricultural University

Kerala HC25 Jan 2019WP(C)/12556/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, ranked 16th for casual labour, was not appointed despite believing vacancies existed. The Court held the rank list had expired and no vacancies were available during its currency, distinguishing Sobhana K.S. The Court directed respondents to grant weightage in future appointments rather than enforcing the expired list.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents to grant due weightage to the petitioner while effecting appointment in subsequent selection processes.

Pushpalatha E.V. Vs the Kerala Agricultural University — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶4

FRIDAY ,THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 5TH MAGHA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 12556 of 2016

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

PUSHPALATHA E.V.

¶8

AGED 33 YEARS,D/O.MEENAKSHI AMMA,EROTH VEEDU, ERAVIL,P.O.PILICODE,KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.

¶10

SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.S.SHYAM KUMAR

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 THE KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY P.O.- 680 656 THRISSUR - REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.

¶13

2 THE ASSOCIATE DEAN

¶14

COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE,KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY,PADANNAKAD P.O., - 671 314, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶15

BY ADVS. SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA,SC,KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY

¶16

SRI.ROBSON PAUL SC KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY SRI.SURYA BINOY SC KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25.01.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

¶19

WP(C).No. 12556 of 2016

¶20

V.G.ARUN, J.

¶21

------------------------------

¶22

W.P.(C)No.12556 of 2016

¶23

-----------------------------------------------Dated this the 25^th day of January, 2019

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

The Petitioner was included as Rank No.16 in the Casual Labour Select List (Women) published by the first respondent, pursuant to the selection process conducted on the basis of the notification dated 15/07/2010 issued by the second respondent. The complaint raised by the petitioner is that in spite of vacancies being available during the currency of Ext.P2 Rank list, she was not appointed. In order to substantiate her contention, the petitioner points out that she was Rank No.25 in Ext.P4 list prepared on the basis of rotation and that upto Rank No.24 from Ext.P4 list was appointed. The petitioner relies on Ext.P5 reply received under the Right to Information Act to contend that the vacancy had arisen on the retirement of a women casual labourer on 31/03/2016. Reliance is also placed on Exts.P8, P9 and P12 to contend that there was deliberate denial of

¶26

¶27

WP(C).No. 12556 of 2016

¶28

appointment, in spite of vacancies being available.

¶29

The learned counsel for the respondents points out that the proposals regarding requirement of casual labourers cannot be the basis to contend or decide that vacancies were available, to which the petitioner could have been appointed. It is submitted that the sanctioned strength of Casual Labourer (Women) during the currency of the Rank list was only 23 and appointments were effected to all those vacancies. It is also pointed out that, at the time of appointment, some discrepancies had occurred in following the reservation roster and that challenge was raised before this Court against the appointments made from the Rank list of both men and women casual labourers. That noting the anomaly, the University had decided to grant permission to appoint nine persons more in both men and women categories, as evident from Ext.R1(a). That, it was under those circumstances that, as against sanctioned strength of 23, 26 women casual labourers had to be appointed. It is further pointed out that in order to regularise the

¶30

¶31

WP(C).No. 12556 of 2016

¶32

appointments made in excess of the sanctioned strength, Ext.R1 proceedings have been issued enhancing the sanctioned strength from 23 to 26. It is therefore contended that, contrary to the assertions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, there was no vacancy available in the post of Casual Labourer(Women) during the currency of the Rank List, in spite of the retirement vacancy, which had arisen on 31/03/2016.

¶33

It is an undisputed fact that the Rank list, in

¶34

spite of being extended twice, expired on 30/04/2017. It is settled law that under normal circumstances, this Court would not issue a writ of mandamus to effect appointment from an expired Rank list. The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the decision of this Court in Sobhana K.S. v. State of Kerala and Others [2008 (3) KHC 909] to contend that mere expiry of the Rank list would not fetter this Court from issuing a direction to effect appointment from the list, if circumstances warranted. On a careful perusal of the judgment in Sobhana's case, I find that the direction in that

¶35

¶36

WP(C).No. 12556 of 2016

¶37

case was rendered under entirely different circumstances, finding that there was an inexcusable infringement of the fundamental rights of the petitioner therein, by effecting an illegal promotion to the vacancy to which the petitioner ought to have been appointed.

¶38

In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the decision in Sobhana's case would not apply to the facts of this case. The Rank list having expired and the fact that there was no vacancy to which the petitioner could have been appointed during the currency of the Rank list having been established, this Court cannot issue a direction to effect appointment from the expired Rank list, in spite of the fact that the petitioner was the next person to be appointed from that list. The learned counsel for the respondents point out that under similar circumstances, this Court had on earlier occasions directed to give weightage to persons included in the Rank list, but was not able to get appointment due to non availability of vacancy, while effecting subsequent appointments.

¶39

¶40

WP(C).No. 12556 of 2016

¶41

In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to grant due weightage to the petitioner, while effecting appointment to the post of Casual Labourer (Women), as and when a subsequent selection process is undertaken by the respondents.

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN

JUDGE

WP(C).No. 12556 of 2016

¶48

APPENDIX

¶49

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶50

P1:	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.E1- 1803/2010 DATED 15.7.2010
P2:	TRUE COPY OF THE RANK LIST PUBLISHED BY THE IST RESPONDENT
P3:	A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 22.2.2016
P4:	A TRUE COPY OF THE TURN WISE RANK LIST OF THE CANDIDATES INCLUDED IN THE EXT.P2 RANK LIST.
P5:	A TRUE COPY OF THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION REPLY DATED 3.3.2016
P6:	A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 2.3.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶51

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

¶52

R1(a)	TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE UNIVERSITY BEARING NO.GA/F2/24792/2014 DATED 01.02.2016
R1(b)	TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE UNIVERSITY BEARING NO.GA/F2/24792/2014 DATED 09.03.2017
R1(C)	TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE UNIVERSITY BEARING NO.GA/F2/24792/2014 DATED 05.04.2017
	\ TRUE COPY//
	PA TO JUDGE

¶53

Pushpalatha E.V. v. the Kerala Agricultural University

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pushpalatha E.V. v. the Kerala Agricultural University

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

B. Rajendra Kumar Vs the Airport Authority of India

Ansar, Vs State of Kerala

Afsal @ Afsar, Vs State of Kerala

Thamban K. Vs Payyannur Muncipality

P.S.Indu Vs State of Kerala

Shylaja T.P. & Another Vs Mahatma Gandhi University and Another