Kerala High Court
K.R.Narayanan National ... vs Vinod Veerakumar on 3 January, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
MONDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 13TH POUSHA, 1943
WA NO. 1173 OF 2021
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT dated 08.03.2021 IN WP(C).NO.18411/2020
AND REVIEW PETITION NO.371 OF 2021 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENT 1 & 2:
1 K.R.NARAYANAN NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF VISUAL SCIENCE
AND ARTS,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, KANJIRAMATTOM P.O.,
KOTTAYAM-686585.
2 THE DIRECTOR,
K.R.NARAYANAN NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF VISUAL SCIENCE
AND ARTS,KANJJIRAMATTOM P.O., KOTTAYAM-686585.
BY ADVS.
SRI.ANAND, SR
SRI.ARJUN VARMA
SMT.LATHA ANAND
SRI.K.R.PRAMOTH KUMAR
SRI.S.VISHNU (ARIKKATTIL)
SRI.RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI B
SRI.SIDHARTH P.S.
SRI.ROHITH MOHAN
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS 1 TO 3 AND RESPONDENT 4:
1 VINOD VEERAKUMAR,
AGED 45 YEARS
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF CINEMATOGRAPHY,
K.R. NARAYANAN NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF VISUAL SCIENCE
AND ARTS, KANJIRAMATTOM P.O., KOTTAYAM-686585.
2 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT,
THIRVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
:2:
W.A.No.1173 of 2021
BY ADVS.
SRI.M.R.HARIRAJ
SRI.THANUJA ROSHAN
SRI.VISWAJITH C.K
SRI.GANGA A.SANKAR
SRI.R.SUJA
SRI.CHACKOCHEN VITHAYATHIL
SRI.GISHA G. RAJ
SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
:3:
W.A.No.1173 of 2021
JUDGMENT
A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.
The 1st and 2nd respondents in WP(C).No.18411 of 2020 are the
appellants before us aggrieved by the judgment dated 08.03.2021 of
the learned Single Judge allowing the Writ Petition, and the order dated
08.07.2021 in Review Petition No.371 of 2021, whereby the Review
Petition preferred against the judgment was dismissed.
2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the Writ appeal are as
follows:
The Writ Petitioner Sri.Vinod Veerakumar was appointed as
Associate Professor in Cinematography in the K.R.Narayanan National
Institute of Visual Science & Arts by Ext.P1 order dated 17.07.2017.
The said order of appointment clearly indicated that the appointment
was merely on contractual basis and to enure for a period of three years
from the date of the order. It is not in dispute that the said appointment
on contractual basis came to an end by efflux of time on 17.06.2020. It
would appear that prior to the expiry of the contract period, a
performance appraisal was resorted to by the appellants herein to see
W.A.No.1173 of 2021
whether the term of any of the contract appointees could be extended.
In the Minutes of the Meeting held by the Performance Appraisal
Committee on 23.06.2020, the case of the Writ petitioner is seen
considered and it was apparently decided to recommend an extension
of the term of the petitioner by three months subject to the findings in
an enquiry that was also recommended for looking into the complaints
received against the Writ Petitioner. It was, thereafter, that Ext.P9
order dated 29.07.2020 was issued noting that the contract period of
the writ petitioner had expired on 17.07.2020 and that the issue of
extension of his contract period would be considered based on the
recommendations of the Performance Appraisal Committee. The writ
petitioner impugned Ext.P9 in the Writ Petition before the learned
Single Judge, inter alia, on the contention that there was no
justification for denying him an extension more so when the
Performance Appraisal Committee had recommended the same albeit
for a period of three months, and subject to the outcome of the enquiry
aforementioned. A learned Single Judge, while admitting the Writ
Petition, passed an interim order staying all further action pursuant to
the order impugned in the Writ Petition. Thereafter, the Writ Petition
was allowed, on the finding that a contract employee could not be
replaced by another contract employee till such time as the post was
regularly filled in accordance with law. The learned Judge, however,
W.A.No.1173 of 2021
permitted the appellants herein to complete the enquiry against the
writ petitioner in accordance with law and to take consequential action
thereafter, but made it clear that in the interregnum, the petitioner
would be permitted to continue in service in view of the interim order
earlier granted by the court. Although a Review Petition was preferred
against the said judgment by the appellants herein, the same came to
be dismissed by the learned Single Judge, who did not find any error
apparent on record necessitating a review of the judgment.
3. Before us, it is the contention of the learned Senior counsel
Sri.Anand duly assisted by the learned counsel Sri.Arjun Varma that the
learned Judge erred in allowing the Writ Petition, more so when it was
the admitted case that the appointment of the writ petitioner as
Associate Professor in Cinematography was purely contractual in
nature, and only for a period of three years commencing from
17.06.2017. It is pointed out that while it may be a fact that the
Performance Appraisal Committee had recommended the continuation
of service of the writ petitioner for a period of three months after the
expiry of the contract period of three years, the appellants were not
inclined to accept the said recommendation and extend the term of the
writ petitioner. It is contended that in the absence of any right enuring
in the writ petitioner to seek a continuance in service, it was not open
W.A.No.1173 of 2021
to the learned Single Judge to extend the tenure of the petitioner,
contrary to the express provisions of the appointment order.
4. Per contra, it is the submission of Sri.M.R.Hariraj, the learned
counsel for the 1 st respondent/writ petitioner that the petitioner's claim
for continuance is based not merely on his earlier appointment on
contract basis but on the legitimate expectation that he had for
continuance based on the recommendations made by the Performance
Appraisal Committee. This is more so when others similarly placed as
him, and who were also initially appointed for a period of three years on
contract basis, were granted extensions based on recommendations of
the Performance Appraisal Committee. He further points out that the
mala fides and hostile attitude of the appellants is also borne out by
their conduct in refusing to issue the writ petitioner with an experience
certificate for the period he had admittedly worked pursuant to his
appointment with effect from 17.06.2017.
5. We have considered the rival submissions and the pleadings on
record as also the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge in
the Writ Petition and the Review Petition referred above. On an overall
consideration, we find that it is not in dispute that the right that is
conferred on an appointee under a contractual appointment comes to
W.A.No.1173 of 2021
an end with the expiry of the period mentioned in the contract of
appointment. In the instant case, that period expired on 17.06.2020.
Thereafter a Committee had appraised the performance of the writ
petitioner during the contract period and recommended to continue the
service of the writ petitioner for a period of three months subject to the
completion of an enquiry that was proposed against him in relation to
certain complaints that were allegedly received against him. The said
enquiry proceedings, however, never got under way since on account of
the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge in the Writ
Petition, the appellants also put on hold further proceedings towards
completion of the enquiry. The learned Senior counsel for the
appellants points out that the enquiry was only for the purposes of
ascertaining the suitability of the writ petition for a possible grant of
extension and in the instant case, it was decided not to extend the term
of the writ petitioner. Under these circumstances, and more so when
we find that after the expiry of the contract period the writ petitioner
did not really have any existing legal right to continue in service under
the appellants for a period beyond what was contemplated in his
appointment order, we cannot recognise any right in the writ petitioner
to continue in service under the appellants beyond the said contract
period merely on the ground that a Performance Appraisal Committee
had recommended his continuance for a further period of three months.
W.A.No.1173 of 2021
The latter fact alone cannot clothe the petitioner with any legitimate
expectation for such expectation must be in relation to a legal right
and, in the instant case, we do not find any such right enuring to the
petitioner from his earlier appointment. In otherwords, so long as the
petitioner cannot trace his claim to any right that enures in him for
continuation in service, the action of the appellants in refusing an
extension of the contract period cannot be said to be illegal. We,
therefore, allow this Writ Appeal by setting aside the impugned
judgment and order respectively of the learned Single Judge, in the Writ
Petition and Review Petition referred above, and dismiss the Writ
Petition.
6. Before parting with this appeal, and taking note of the
apprehension raised by Sri.M.R.Hariraj, the learned counsel for the 1 st
respondent, we make it clear that the termination of service of the 1 st
respondent/writ petitioner shall be treated as consequent to the expiry
of the contract period envisaged in Ext.P1 letter of appointment and
therefore non-stigmatic. The alleged complaint received against the
writ petitioner shall not be reflected in any of the communications
issued to him or in any of the service records maintained in relation to
the writ petitioner by the appellants. The appellants shall also forthwith
issue to the 1st respondent/writ petitioner the Experience Certificate
W.A.No.1173 of 2021
requested by him to cover the period from 17.06.2017 to 17.06.2020
when he rendered service in the appellant institution.
The Writ Petition is allowed as above.
Sd/-
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
JUDGE
mns
W.A.No.1173 of 2021
APPENDIX OF WA 1173/2021
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER
DATED 28/04/2017.
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN THE
WRIT PETITION NO.18411/2020 DATED
09/09/2020.
Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE
DIRECTOR DATED 15/09/2020.
RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES:
Annexure R1A A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF
THE NOTIFICATION
NO.27/A1/KRNNIVSA/2021 DATED
10/12/2021
Annexure R1(B) A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED
18/1/2021 ALONG WITH THE DOCUMENTS
ENCLOSED THEREWITH SUBMITTED BY THE
GOVERNMENT PLEADER IN THE WRIT
PETITION
Annexure R1(C) A TRUE COPY OF THE E-MAIL DATED
26.11.2021
Annexure R1(D) TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 2.12.2021
//TRUE COPY//
P.A TO JUDGE
