Kerala High Court
Josmi Jose vs Kerala Veterinary And Animal Sciences ... on 27 June, 2025
Author: Anil K.Narendran
Bench: Anil K.Narendran
1
W.A Nos 1366 and
1393 of 2025 2025:KER:46177
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 6TH ASHADHA, 1947
WA NO. 1366 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.05.2025 IN WP(C) NO.17387 OF
2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS IN WPC:
1 BINDU P.G, AGED 51 YEARS
W/O. CHANDRAN PUTHANMADATHIL HOUSE, MADAKKATHARA P.
O., VELLANIKKARA WEST, THRISSUR, PIN - 680651
2 SEJO JOSE, AGED 44 YEARS
S/O. JOSE, MANGALATH HOUSE, PALLIYANGADI, PARAVATTANI
EAST FORT, THRISSUR, PIN - 680005
3 NISHAD S., AGED 42 YEARS
S/O. SELVAM, JYOTHI BHAVAN, PULLIKKANAM, VAGAMON,
IDUKKI, PIN - 685203
BY ADVS.
SRI.RENJITH B.MARAR
SMT.LAKSHMI.N.KAIMAL
SRI.P.RAJKUMAR
SRI.KESHAVRAJ NAIR
SHRI.BIJU VIGNESWAR
SHRI.ARUN POOMULLI
SHRI.ABHIRAM.S.
SMT.GAADHA SURESH
SRI.T.K.BABU
SHRI.VISWANATH JAYAN
SMT.AKHILA RADHAKRISHNAN
SMT.SARIGA RAMACHANDRAN M.
SHRI.AKSHAY SHIBU
2
W.A Nos 1366 and
1393 of 2025 2025:KER:46177
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN WPC:
1 KERALA VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCES UNIVERSITY
LAKKIDI P.O., WAYANAD REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR,
PIN - 673576
2 THE REGISTRAR
KERALA VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCES UNIVERSITY,
LAKKIDI P.O., WAYANAD, PIN - 673576
3 THE VICE CHANCELLOR
KERALA VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCES UNIVERSITY,
LAKKIDI P.O., WAYANAD, PIN - 673576
BY ADV SRI.MANU GOVIND, SC FOR KV & ASU
ADV.NISHA BOSE, SR.GP
THIS WRIT APPEAL WAS FINALLY HEARD ON 16.06.2025 ALONG WITH
WA 1393 OF 2025, THE COURT ON 27.06.2025 THE FOLLOWING:
3
W.A Nos 1366 and
1393 of 2025 2025:KER:46177
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 6TH ASHADHA, 1947
WA NO. 1393 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.05.2025 IN WP(C) NO.16169 OF
2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS IN WPC:
1 JOSMI JOSE,AGED 39 YEARS
W/O. SUDHEESH, RESIDING AT ARAYA NIVAS, 2ND UNIT,
SUKUNDAGIRI, VYTHIRI, WAYANAD, PIN - 673576
2 DHAS. K,AGED 41 YEARS
S/O. KURIS, RESIDING AT PUTHUPPARAMPIL, KOLAHALMEDU,
ELAPPARA, IDUKKI, PIN - 685501
3 UMESH. R,AGED 39 YEARS
S/O. RAJAN, RESIDING AT 2ND UNIT, SUKUNDAGIRI,
VYTHIRI, WAYANAD, PIN - 673576
4 KRISHNADAS. K,AGED 48 YEARS
S/O. BALAKRISHNAN, RESIDING AT KIZHAKKIVEETTIL HOUSE,
POOVANCHIRA P.O., THRISSUR, PIN - 680652
5 JANCY. P. P , AGED 45 YEARS
D/O. PAULOSE, RESIDING AT PARAKKAL HOUSE, PATTIKKAD
P.O., CHATTANKULAM, PIN - 680652
BY ADVS.
SRI.RENJITH B.MARAR
SMT.LAKSHMI.N.KAIMAL
SRI.P.RAJKUMAR
SRI.KESHAVRAJ NAIR
SHRI.BIJU VIGNESWAR
SHRI.ARUN POOMULLI
SHRI.ABHIRAM.S.
SMT.GAADHA SURESH
4
W.A Nos 1366 and
1393 of 2025 2025:KER:46177
SRI.T.K.BABU
SHRI.VISWANATH JAYAN
SMT.AKHILA RADHAKRISHNAN
SMT.SARIGA RAMACHANDRAN M.
SHRI.AKSHAY SHIBU
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN WPC:
1 KERALA VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCES UNIVERSITY
LAKKIDI P. O., WAYANAD REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.,
PIN - 673576
2 THE REGISTRAR
KERALA VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCES UNIVERSITY,
LAKKIDI P.O., WAYANAD, PIN - 673576
3 THE VICE CHANCELLOR
KERALA VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCES UNIVERSITY,
LAKKIDI P. O., WAYANAD, PIN - 673576
SMT. NISHA BOSE, SR GP,
SRI. MANU GOVIND, SC FOR KV & ASU
THIS WRIT APPEAL WAS FINALLY HEARD ON 16.06.2025 ALONG WITH
WA 1366 OF 2025, THE COURT ON 27.06.2025 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
5
W.A Nos 1366 and
1393 of 2025 2025:KER:46177
COMMON JUDGMENT
Muralee Krishna, J.
These writ appeals are filed under Section 5(i) of the Kerala
High Court Act, 1958, by the petitioners in W.P.(C)Nos.16169 of
2025 and 17387 of 2025, challenging the common judgment
dated 22.05.2025, whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed
the writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
by the appellants seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the
respondents to enlarge the number of seats for the Diploma and
Livestock Management Course conducted by the 1 st respondent as
per Ext.P1 notification and a writ of mandamus commanding the
respondents to enroll and admit the appellants in the Diploma and
Livestock Management Course.
2. The appellants are casual labourers in the 1 st respondent
University who entered regular service on 01.01.2017. Before
entering regular service, they were working as casual labourers
from the year 2014. The only promotion post available for the
appellants is Farm Assistant Grade-II through in-service
recruitment. As per the qualifications prescribed in item No.87
Schedule I to the Kerala Veterinary University First Statute, for
W.A Nos 1366 and
1393 of 2025 2025:KER:46177
internal selection, the incumbent has to pass Plus Two or its
equivalent and Diploma in Livestock Management from any
recognised institution approved by the Government. The Diploma
course is conducted by the 1 st respondent University and invited
applications from Class III and Class IV permanent labourers on
02.10.2024 for admission to course. The appellants applied for
the course, and some of them found a place in the supplementary
list and some have not been included at all. Initially, after
scrutinising the applications, 58 persons were found to be
ineligible as they were said to be overqualified to pursue the
Diploma in Livestock Management Course from the University.
The said overqualified candidates approached this Court by filing
W.P.(C)Nos.46758 and 46678 of 2024 against their exclusion from
participating in the examination. By the interim order dated
31.12.2024, this court permitted those over-qualified candidates
to participate in the entrance examination for the course.
Thereafter, all the disqualified candidates were permitted to
appear for the entrance examination. By Ext.P2 judgment, this
Court finally disposed of the writ petitions directing the 2 nd
respondent to consider the eligibility of the appellants for
W.A Nos 1366 and
1393 of 2025 2025:KER:46177
admission to the Diploma course. The appellants also participated
in the entrance examination, and appellants 1 and 4 were included
in the supplementary list of admission to the Diploma course.
During the pendency of the litigations, the 1 st respondent
University, vide Ext.P5 order dated 07.02.2025 limited the seats
as 32. Thereafter, the appellants were expelled from the first list
of eligible candidates. One Kanjanadevi. G, who was included as
No.37 in the rank list, approached this Court to rectify error in
calculating marks based on the date of regularisation. By Ext.P6
judgment dated 25.03.2025 in W.P.(C)No.12206 of 2025 filed by
the said Kanjanadevi, this Court directed her to approach the Vice
Chancellor under statute 10(2)(A)(xxviii). Thereafter, the Vice
Chancellor permitted the said Kanjanadevi also to attend the
Course. Contending that limiting the total number of seats to 32
was intended to eliminate the appellants, they approached this
Court with the writ petitions.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the
learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
4. The prayer in the writ petition is to direct the respondents
by way of a writ of mandamus to admit them for the Diploma and
W.A Nos 1366 and
1393 of 2025 2025:KER:46177
Livestock Management Course after increasing the presently
allotted 32 seats to the extent of the number of applicants. It is
also the grievance of the appellants that while selecting the
employees to the course, seniority was not considered.
5. On the other hand, the stand of the University is that the
total number of seats allotted for the course is only 32. It is not
possible to increase the seats to the extent of the number of
applicants. The persons who got admission to the course had
obtained Ext.P2 judgment from this Court to hear them regarding
their qualification, and accordingly, they were heard and found
qualified for the course. Now the course has already been started,
and it is not possible to admit the appellants also to the course.
6. In Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Cooperative
Society Ltd. v. Sipahi Singh [(1977) 4 SCC 145], a Three-
Judge Bench of the Apex Court held that a writ of mandamus can
be granted only in a case where there is a statutory duty imposed
upon the officer concerned and there is a failure on the part of
that officer to discharge the statutory obligation. The chief
function of a writ is to compel performance of public duties
prescribed by statute and to keep subordinate tribunals and
W.A Nos 1366 and
1393 of 2025 2025:KER:46177
officers exercising public functions within the limit of their
jurisdiction.
7. In Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Sunder Lal Jain
[(2008) 2 SCC 280] the Apex Court held that in order that a writ
of mandamus may be issued, there must be a legal right with the
party asking for the writ to compel the performance of some
statutory duty cast upon the authorities. In the said decision, the
Apex Court noticed that the principles on which a writ of
mandamus can be issued have been stated in 'The Law of
Extraordinary Legal Remedies' by F. G. Ferris and F. G. Ferris, Jr.
that, mandamus is, subject to the exercise of a sound judicial
discretion, the appropriate remedy to enforce a plain, positive,
specific and ministerial duty presently existing and imposed by law
upon officers and others who refuse or neglect to perform such
duty, when there is no other adequate and specific legal remedy
and without which there would be a failure of justice.
8. In State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra [(1996) 9 SCC
309] the Apex Court held that under the Constitution a
mandamus can be issued by the Court when the applicant
establishes that he has a legal right to performance of legal duty
W.A Nos 1366 and
1393 of 2025 2025:KER:46177
by the party against whom the mandamus is sought and said right
was subsisting on the date of the petition. The duty that may be
enjoined by mandamus may be one imposed by the Constitution
or a Statute or by Rules or orders having the force of law. But no
mandamus can be issued to direct the Government to refrain from
enforcing the provisions of law or to do something which is
contrary to law.
9. In Bhaskara Rao A.B. v. CBI [(2011) 10 SCC 259]
the Apex Court reiterated that, generally, no court has competence
to issue a direction contrary to law nor can the Court direct an
authority to act in contravention of the statutory provisions. The
Courts are meant to enforce the rule of law and not to pass orders
or directions that are contrary to what has been injuncted by law.
10. The application for the course was invited by Ext.P1
notification dated 02.10.2024 issued by the 2 nd respondent
Registrar of the University. By virtue of Ext.P5 order dated
07.02.2025, the total number of seats allotted by the University
for the said course is only 32. It is by taking into consideration of
several aspects, such as manpower and other facilities required
for conducting the course, etc., particular number of seats are
W.A Nos 1366 and
1393 of 2025 2025:KER:46177
being allotted for a course by the University. There is no statutory
violation pointed out by the appellants in fixing the number of
seats by the University. Similarly, the University has no statutory
obligation to increase the number of seats to the extent of the
number of applicants, so as to admit all of them to the Course. In
such circumstances, the University cannot be directed to enhance
the seats to the extent of the number of applicants.
Having considered the pleadings and materials on record,
and the submissions made at the Bar, we find no ground to
interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The writ
appeals, therefore, necessarily fail and are accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
sks MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
