Dismissed

Surya Sugunan v. Cochin University of Science and Technology - Cusat

Kerala HC13 Jun 2022WA/384/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed three writ appeals challenging orders denying regularisation to temporary staff. The court distinguished Nihal Singh, holding that project-specific temporary appointees cannot claim regularisation without proven permanent duties, even if sanctioned posts are unavailable.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeals challenging the dismissal of regularisation petitions were disposed of and no regularisation was granted.

Surya Sugunan Vs Cochin University of Science and… — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA MONDAY, THE 13^TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 23RD JYAISHTA, 1944

¶6

WA NO. 384 OF 2022

¶7

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 24046/2018 DATED 21.12.2021 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶8

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶9

SURYA SUGUNAN

¶10

AGED 42 YEARS, W/O. PRAMOD KUMAR, WHO WAS WORKING AS AQUATIC ANIMAL HEALTH ASSISTANT, NATIONAL CENTRE FOR AQUATIC ANIMAL HEALTH, COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, LAKESIDE CAMPUS, FINE ARTS AVENUE, KOCHI-682016 RESIDING AT MANALIL HOUSE, KUZHIMATTOM P.O., KOTTAYAM-686533

¶11

BY ADVS. MOLTY MAJEED C.A.MAJEED K.H.ASIF P.B.UNNIKRISHNAN NAIR RUBEN GEORGE ROCK ASOK CHACKO THOMAS

¶12

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1 THE COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, SOUTH KALAMASSERY, KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682022

¶14

2 THE DIRECTOR NATIONAL CENTRE FOR AQUATIC ANIMAL HEALTH, COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, LAKESIDE CAMPUS, FINE ARTS AVENUE, KOCHI - 682016

¶15

¶16

Writ Appeal Nos.384, 389 & 402 of 2022

¶17

3 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001 BY ADVS. SHRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY SC COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY SHRI.VIPIN D.G., SC, COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY SRI.A.J.VARGHESE, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶18

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.06.2022, ALONG WITH WA.389/2022, 402/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

Writ Appeal Nos.384, 389 & 402 of 2022

¶20

¶21

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶22

PRESENT

¶23

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶24

¶25

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA

¶26

MONDAY, THE 13^TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 23RD JYAISHTA, 1944

¶27

WA NO. 389 OF 2022

¶28

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 11640/2018 DATED 21.12.2021 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶29

APPELLANTS/PETITIONER:

¶30

A L SOMAN

¶31

AGED 58 YEARS, S.O. LOHIDAKSHAN, WHO WAS WORKING AS AQUATIC ANIMAL HEALTH ASSISTANT, NATIONAL CENTRE FOR AQUATIC ANIMAL HEALTH, COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, LAKESIDE CAMPUS, FINE ARTS AVENUE, KOCHI- 682 016 RESIDING AT AZHEEKKAL KADAVIL, FISH FARM ROAD, ELENKUNNAPUZHA P.O., ERNAKULAM -682 503

¶32

BY ADVS. MOLTY MAJEED C.A.MAJEED K.H.ASIF P.B.UNNIKRISHNAN NAIR RUBEN GEORGE ROCK ASOK CHACKO THOMAS

¶33

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶34

1 THE COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, SOUTH KALAMASSERY, KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682022

¶35

¶36

Writ Appeal Nos.384, 389 & 402 of 2022

¶37

2 THE DIRECTOR NATIONAL CENTRE FOR AQUATIC ANIMAL HEALTH, COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, LAKESIDE CAMPUS, FINE ARTS AVENUE, KOCHI, PIN - 682016

¶38

3 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695001

¶39

BY ADVS.

¶40

SHRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY, SC, COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY SHRI.VIPIN D.G., SC, COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY SRI.A.J.VARGHESE,SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶41

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.06.2022, ALONG WITH WA.384/2022, 402/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶42

Writ Appeal Nos.384, 389 & 402 of 2022

¶43

¶44

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶45

PRESENT

¶46

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶47

¶48

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA

¶49

MONDAY, THE 13^TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 23RD JYAISHTA, 1944

¶50

WA NO. 402 OF 2022

¶51

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 24032/2018 DATED 21.12.2021 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶52

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶53

BLESSY JOSE AGED 43 YEARS W-O. SANTHOSH, WHO WAS WORKING AS AQUATIC ANIMAL HEALTH ASSISTANT, NATIONAL CENTRE FOR AQUATIC ANIMAL HEALTH, COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, LAKESIDE CAMPUS, FINE ARTS AVENUE, KOCHI- 682 016 RESIDING AT ARIMATTATHU-36, MULAVARIKKAN ROAD, KONTHURUTHY, THEVARA, ERNAKULAM-682 013 BY ADVS. MOLTY MAJEED RUBEN GEORGE ROCK C.A.MAJEED K.H.ASIF P.B.UNNIKRISHNAN NAIR ASOK CHACKO THOMAS

¶54

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶55

1 THE COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, SOUTH KALAMASSERY, KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682022

¶56

Writ Appeal Nos.384, 389 & 402 of 2022

¶57

¶58

2 THE DIRECTOR NATIONAL CENTRE FOR AQUATIC ANIMAL HEALTH, COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, LAKESIDE CAMPUS, FINE ARTS AVENUE, KOCHI - 682016

¶59

3 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695001

¶60

BY ADVS.

¶61

SHRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY, SC, COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY SHRI.VIPIN D.G., SC, COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

¶62

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.06.2022, ALONG WITH WA.389/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶63

Writ Appeal Nos.384, 389 & 402 of 2022

¶64

¶65

P.B.SURESH KUMAR & C.S.SUDHA, JJ.

¶66

Writ Appeal Nos.384, 389 and 402 of 2022

¶67

Dated this the 13^th day of June, 2022.

¶68

JUDGMENT

¶69

P.B.Suresh Kumar, J.

¶70

These writ appeals are directed against the common judgment in three writ petitions, viz, W.P.(C) Nos.24046, 11640 and 24032 of 2018. The appellants were the petitioners in the writ petitions. As the writ petitions were disposed of by a common judgment, we are disposing of the writ appeals also by this common judgment.

¶71

W.A.No.389 of 2022 arises from W.P.(C)

¶72

No.11640 of 2018. The case set out by the appellant in the writ

¶73

petition was that he was engaged as Field Assistant in the National Centre for Aquatic Animal Health (the Centre)

¶74

Writ Appeal Nos.384, 389 & 402 of 2022 8

¶75

established by the Cochin University of Science and Technology (the University) in the year 2001; that while he was working as such, he was appointed on 28.12.2016 on temporary basis for a period of three years in the Centre as Aquatic Animal Health Assistant; that while working as Aquatic Animal Health Assistant, the appellant applied for regularisation in the service of the Centre as Aquatic Animal Health Assistant, and in terms of the order passed on 09.01.2018, the request of the appellant for regularisation was turned down by the University on the ground that he was engaged only as a project staff and not against any sanctioned post in the University and that persons engaged for projects cannot be absorbed in the service of the University as the appointments to the service in the University are governed by the Cochin University of Science and Technology Act, and the statutes and ordinances made thereunder. The writ petition was one instituted challenging the order dated 09.01.2018.

¶76

W.A.No.384 of 2022 arises from W.P.(C)

¶77

Writ Appeal Nos.384, 389 & 402 of 2022 9

¶78

No.24046 of 2018. The case set out by the appellant in the writ petition was that she was engaged as Shrimp Farm Technician in the the Centre in the year 2001; that while she was working as such, she was appointed on 28.12.2016 on temporary basis for a period of three years in the Centre as Aquatic Animal Health Assistant; that while working as Aquatic Animal Health Assistant, the appellant applied for regularisation in the service of the Centre as Aquatic Animal Health Assistant and in terms of the order passed on 09.01.2018, the request of the appellant for regularisation was turned down by the University on identical grounds on which the request of the appellant in W.A.No.389 of 2022 was turned down. The writ petition was one instituted challenging the order dated 09.01.2018.

¶79

W.A.No.402 of 2022 arises from W.P.(C)

¶80

No.24032 of 2018. The case set out by the appellant in the writ petition was that she was engaged as a Microbiologist in the Centre in the year 2001; that while she was working as such, she was appointed on 28.12.2016 on temporary basis for a

¶81

¶82

Writ Appeal Nos.384, 389 & 402 of 2022

¶83

period of three years in the Centre as Aquatic Animal Health Assistant; that while working as Aquatic Animal Health Assistant, the appellant applied for regularisation in the service of the Centre as Aquatic Animal Health Assistant, and in terms of the order passed on 09.01.2018, the request of the appellant for regularisation was turned down by the University on identical grounds on which the request of the appellant in W.A.No.389 of 2022 was turned down. The writ petition was one instituted challenging the order dated 09.01.2018.

¶84

The learned Single Judge found that the appellants were appointed for the purpose of various projects undertaken by the Centre and they cannot, therefore, claim regularisation and consequently, dismissed the writ petitions.

¶85

Heard the learned counsel for the appellants

¶86

as also the learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent University.

¶87

In the counter affidavits filed by the University in the writ petitions, it is categorically stated that the appellants

¶88

Writ Appeal Nos.384, 389 & 402 of 2022 11

¶89

are not persons appointed against any sanctioned posts in the University and they were engaged only for the purpose of the various projects undertaken by the Centre. The appellants do not dispute the fact that they were not persons appointed against any sanctioned posts. However, they dispute the fact that they were engaged only for the projects undertaken by the Centre and they assert that they have been engaged by the Centre for discharging duties of permanent nature. According to the appellants, since they were engaged continuously right from 2001, it is for the University to create necessary posts in the Centre and absorb them. It is their contention that merely for the reason that sanctioned posts are not available, they cannot be denied regularisation. The appellants rely on the decision of the Apex Court in Nihal Singh v. State of Punjab , 2013 KHC 4607, in support of the said contention.

¶90

Though no documents have been made available by the appellants to show the nature of their initial engagement, the appellants have made available the orders

¶91

Writ Appeal Nos.384, 389 & 402 of 2022 12

¶92

issued by the Centre, in terms of which they have been appointed on temporary basis as Aquatic Animal Health Assistants. The said appointment orders categorically recite that their appointments were purely temporary and only for a period of three years. The terms and conditions of the said appointments also recite that remuneration will be paid to them exclusively from the revenue generated through the extension activities of the Centre. The appellants were not able to establish that they were discharging duties of permanent nature in connection with the functioning of the Centre. In the circumstances, there is no infirmity in the finding rendered by the learned Single Judge that the appellants were only persons engaged in the various projects undertaken by the Centre. If that be so, the appellants cannot claim regularisation in the service of the Centre, and the orders issued by the University declining regularisation are in order.

¶93

Nihal Singh is a case where the Apex Court

¶94

held that if certain persons are entitled to regularisation in a

¶95

Writ Appeal Nos.384, 389 & 402 of 2022 13

¶96

service, the fact that there are no sanctioned posts to accommodate them cannot be an impediment for not regularising them, and posts necessary for regularisation shall be created by the competent authorities. The said judgment, according to us, has no application to the facts of these cases.

¶97

In the said view of the matter, the writ appeals are

¶98

devoid of merits and are accordingly, dismissed.

¶99

Sd/-

¶100

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.

¶101

Sd/-

¶102

C.S.SUDHA, JUDGE.

¶103

Surya Sugunan v. Cochin University of Science and Technology - Cusat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surya Sugunan v. Cochin University of Science and Technology - Cusat

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

K.Sivadasan Nair, Vs State of Kerala

Aneesh Philipose Vs Sherin Kuruvilla

K.v.Prakashan Vs a.a.Kumaran

A L Soman Vs Cochin University of Science and Technology

Blessy Jose Vs Cochin University of Science and Technology

The State of Kerala, Vs the Corporate Manager