Kerala High Court
Prasanth M. vs The University Of Calicut on 7 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
THURSDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 17TH POUSHA, 1942
WA.No.32 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER IN WP(C) NO. 23/2021(C) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:
1 PRASANTH M., AGED 38 YEARS
S/O.VELAYUDHAN.M., MARUTHADAN HOUSE,
MUNDUPARAMBA P.O.,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 509
2 MUHAMMED BINSHAD.K., AGED 28 YEARS
S/O. ABDUL AZEEZ.K., KANANGARI HOUSE,
THENJIPALAM P.O.,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-673 636
3 MUHAMMED SUNEER.E., AGED 35 YEARS
S/O. ABDUL AZEEZ.E., ELIKKOTTIL HOUSE,
KADANNAMANNA P.O., MANKADA,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679 324
4 ABDUL WAHAB ODAKKAL, AGED 34 YEARS
S/O. MOHAMMED ALI ODAKKAL,
AREEKAD HOUSE,
CALICUT AIRPORT P.O.,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-673 647
BY ADVS.
SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.)
SMT.NISHA GEORGE
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS :
1 THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT,
CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O., MALAPPURAM, KERALA-673 635,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR
2 THE VICE CHANCELLOR,
UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O.,
THENJIPALAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-673 635
WA.No.32 OF 2021
2
3 THE SYNDICATE,
UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O.,
THENJIPALAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-673 635,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN
4 KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
THULASI HILLS, PATTOM PALACE P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004,
[email protected]
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. P.C. SASIDHARAN, SC
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.01.2021, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA.No.32 OF 2021
3
JUDGMENT
Shaffique, J
The writ appeal has been filed challenging an interim order
dated 05.01.2021. The relief sought for in the writ
petition was to stay Exts.P12 and P15 and all further
actions pursuant to the same. Ext.P12 is the extract of the
urgent item of the minutes of the meeting of the Syndicate
held on 30.12.2020, wherein they have decided to
regularize contract/daily wage employees, who were
working as gardener, room-boy, security guard, electricity
worker, driver, programmer, pump operator, plumber etc.,
for the last ten years. Ext.P15 is the order issued by the
University in compliance with Ext.P12.
2. It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the
aforesaid orders are totally against the judgment of the
Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi
[(2006) 4 SCC 1].
3. We heard the learned counsel appearing for the University
as well.
4. It is submitted that the learned single Judge had only
observed that Exts.P12 and P15 will be subject to the
WA.No.32 OF 2021
further orders in the writ petition and the matter is posted
after three weeks, therefore, it is open for the petitioners
to seek appropriate relief. That apart in appeal no
specific relief had been sought for to stay Exts.P12 and
P15. It is also brought to our notice that consequential
orders pursuant to Ext.P15 has already been passed.
5. The writ petition concerns a major issue which requires to
be addressed by the learned single Judge. Petitioners have
approached the learned single Judge challenging Exts.P12
and P15 and also sought for a declaration that all
vacancies in non-teaching posts in the University shall be
filled up only through Kerala Public Service Commission.
There cannot be any dispute about the fact that, when
public employment is involved, necessarily the University
will have to approach the Kerala Public Service
Commission. As far as the contract employment is
concerned, issue is virtually covered by judgment in
Umadevi's case (supra) . Both sides probably relies upon
Umadevi's case (supra) in order to challenge Ext.P12 and
P15 and also to sustain the said order. We are of the
view that this matter requires consideration by the learned
single Judge. However, if the appointments are permitted
WA.No.32 OF 2021
to be made pursuant to Exts.P12 and P15, it will be render
substantial injustice to the persons waiting for public
employment. Prima facie we are of the view that Exts.P12
and P15 ought to have been stayed. If at all the persons
were regularised pursuant to Exts.P12 and P15, they shall
continue in the manner in which they are working prior to
Exts.P12 and P15. Under such circumstances, this appeal
is disposed of as under :
(i) Exts.P12 and P15 shall remain
stayed until further orders are
passed by the learned single
Judge.
(ii) Parties shall approach the
learned single Judge for an
early hearing, if necessary.
Sd/-
A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE
sd/-
GOPINATH P., JUDGE
AMV/07/01/2021
WA.No.32 OF 2021
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE-A1 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED
07.08.2020 IN WA 1020/2020 PASSED BY
THIS HON'BLE COURT
ANNEXURE-A2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
09.10.2020 IN WA 1020/2020 PASSED BY
THIS HON'BLE COURT
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL
TRUE COPY P.A.TO JUDGE
