Kerala High Court
Thulaseedharan Pillai B vs State Of Kerala on 24 June, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 3RD ASHADHA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 9723 OF 2022
PETITIONER:
THULASEEDHARAN PILLAI B
AGED 59 YEARS
S/O. BHASKARAN PILLAI.G., WORKING AS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
(CPAS), ESTABLISHED BY GOVERNMENT OF KERALA (UNDER ORDER OF
TERMINATION ) RESIDING AT INDEEVARAM, NEETHI NAGAR, AMALAGIRI
P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 565
BY ADVS.
C.S.AJITH PRAKASH
T.K.DEVARAJAN
PAUL C THOMAS
FRANKLIN ARACKAL
M.B.SOORI
BABU M.
NIDHIN RAJ VETTIKKADAN
HAARIS MOOSA
ANCY THANKACHAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, HIGH EDUCATION (B)
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001
2 CENTRE OF PROFESSIONAL AND ADVANCED STUDIES)(CPAS),
HEAD OFFICE, SCHOOL OF MEDICAL EDUCATION (ANNEXE), ARPOOKKARA,
GANDHINAGAR, KOTTAYAM-686 008, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR
3 THE DIRECTOR
CENTRE FOR PROFESSIONAL AND ADVANCED STUDIES, HEAD OFFICE,
SCHOOL OF MEDICAL EDUCATION (ANNEXE), ARPOOKKARA, GANDHINAGAR,
KOTTAYAM-686 008
BY ADV SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT RESMI THOMAS -GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.06.2022,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 9723 OF 2022
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner was engaged on contract as Administrative
Officer by the 2nd respondent - Centre for Professional and Advanced
Studies (CPAS). He says that, however, making certain reckless
allegations against him, Ext.P7 order has been issued, terminating
his contract, but without even conducting any enquiry, as is
mandated by Ext.P8 Government Order and in blatant violation of
Ext.P9 contract, which he had entered into with the CPAS. He,
therefore, prays that Ext.P7 be quashed.
2. I have heard Sri.Ajith Prakash - learned counsel for the
petitioner; Sri.P.C.Sasidharan - learned Standing Counsel for the
CPAS and the learned Government Pleader - Smt.Resmi Thomas,
appearing for the official respondent.
3. Sri.Ajith Prakash submitted that Ext.P7 has been issued
without causing any enquiry as is required under the aforementioned
Government Order and that, in any event of the matter, even if such
action could have been taken, it ought to have complied with the
imperatives of Ext.P9 contract, which the parties had entered into.
He pointed out that, going by Ext.P8, an enquiry ought to have been
conducted, if there were any allegations of misconduct against his
client; while, as per the terms of Ext.P9 contract, it can be
WP(C) NO. 9723 OF 2022
terminated before its term only after issuing a month's notice in
writing. He asserted that, both these conditions have been violated
and therefore, that Ext.P7 is without legs to stand on.
4. Sri.P.C.Sasidharan - learned Standing Counsel for the
CPAS, on the other hand, submitted that, as is evident from Ext.P7,
the petitioner's termination is not stigmatic, though it has been
explained in the counter affidavit as to why his continuance in the
CPAS became untenable. He added that the petitioner has already
reached 59 years in age, which is more than the retirement age of
regular non-teaching staff in the Society and that it was, therefore,
not necessary for his client to have issued any notice to him before
termination of his contract. The learned Standing Counsel, therefore,
prayed that this writ petition be dismissed.
5. Smt.Resmi Thomas - learned Government Pleader,
submitted that the disputes impelled in this case are between the
petitioner and the CPAS and that the Government have no role to
play in it.
6. When I consider the afore submissions, it is indubitable
that Ext.P7 attaches no stigma against the petitioner and I find
justification to declare so, since it is also admitted.
7. True, some allegations have been faintly shown in the
counter affidavit filed by the CPAS, but it would be of no
WP(C) NO. 9723 OF 2022
consequence because the order terminating his contract does not
speak about it at all.
8. Obviously, therefore, Ext.P8 Government Order would not
come to play as far as the petitioner is concerned - he being not a
regular employee, having been engaged even though he had crossed
the age of 58, which is the upper age limit for such employees. The
only other question is whether he was entitled to a month's notice
or salary for such period before Ext.P7 had been issued.
9. The answer of the CPAS to the afore is that since
complaints of misconduct had been impelled against the petitioner,
Ext.P9 contract render it within their power to terminate his services
without issuance of any notice.
10. When I assess the afore rival contentions, as long as
Ext.P9 contract specifically stipulates that termination of the said
agreement is possible only on giving a month's notice in writing,
prima facie, Ext.P7, which has been issued without the same being
complied, may be defective on that ground. The answer to this
contention of the petitioner by the CPAS, as recorded above, is
inherently flawed, since if his termination is on account of
misconduct, then an enquiry becomes necessary as per Ext.P8 order.
11. However, there is no reason for this Court to intervene
with the same or to ask the petitioner to be reinstated now,
WP(C) NO. 9723 OF 2022
particularly when, as I have already recorded above, he is 59 years in
age and his contract is to expire in August, 2022. In any event, as
seen above, Ext.P7 order imposes no stigma on the petitioner, and
hence the allegations against him by the CPAS are not relevant.
In the afore circumstances even if the infraction of Ext.P9 to
the afore extent can be found to be in any manner in favour of the
petitioner, I am certain that he cannot be granted any relief in this
writ petition for the reasons I have already recorded above.
Resultantly, I close this writ petition without any further orders;
reiterating that Ext.P7 does not cause any stigma on the petitioner.
SD/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
rp
WP(C) NO. 9723 OF 2022
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9723/2022
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.5141/2019/CPAS HO
DATED 03.08.2020 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR OF CPAS
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE DIRECTOR
EXTENDING THE PERIOD UPTO 02.08.2021 DATED
04.08.2021
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.1375/2020 CPAS HO
DATED 05.11.20220 ISSUED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE
OFFICER OF CPAS
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE AUDIT REPORT IN RESPECT OF STAS,
PULARIKKUNNU, KOTTAYAM IS SUBMITTED BY THE AUDIT
LAW
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SAID TO HAVE BEEN
SUBMITTED BY SMT.SHEEJA S TO THE DIRECTOR DATED
11.03.2022
Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE
ASSOCIATION TO THE DIRECTOR DATED 12.03.2022
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE E-MAIL COMMUNICATION ATTACHING THE
PROCEEDINGS NO.5141/2019/CPAS HO DATED 19.03.2022
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE RULES
CONTAINING THE QUALIFICATION METHOD OF APPOINTMENT
AND SERVICE CONDITIONS OF THE CPAS STAFF APPROVED
BY THE HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT BY G.O. DATED
26.06.2018
Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE FORMAT OF AGREEMENT ATTACHED AS
APPENDIX III TO THE SERVICE RULES OF THE CPAS
