Kerala High Court
Jithin Jose vs State Of Kerala on 15 September, 2025
Author: Anil K. Narendran
Bench: Anil K. Narendran
2025:KER:68685
1
W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716,
1736 and 1842 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025/24TH BHADRA, 1947
WA NO. 1664 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 15.10.2024 IN WP(C) NO.34727 OF 2023
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:
1 NISHANTH R, AGED 38 YEARS
S/O.MR.K.RAGHAVAN, ADV. ASSISTANT PROFESSOR
(CONTRACT), COCHIN UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING,
KUTTANADU, PULINCUNNU, ALAPPUZHA -688504, RESIDING AT
GOKULAM, 352/C, NO.10, VARAPARAMBIL ROAD,
W. KADUNGALLOOR, ALUVA, PIN - 683110
2 DEEPA NAIR, AGED 48 YEARS
W/O.JAYAKRISHNAN B, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR (CONTRACT),
COCHIN UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, KUTTANADU,
PULINCUNNU, ALAPPUZHA -688504, RESIDING AT H.NO.48,
VAISHAK, KAITHAVANA HOUSING BOARD, SANATHANAPURAM P.O.
ALAPPUZHA -., PIN - 688003
3 ANOOP S, AGED 33 YEARS
S/O.MR.K.K.SULAIMAN KUNJU, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR
(CONTRACT), COCHIN UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING,
KUTTANADU, PULINCUNNU, ALAPPUZHA -688504, RESIDING AT
SUDHEER MANZIL, THATHAMPALLY P.O.
ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688013
4 MALINI MOHAN, AGED 41 YEARS,
W/O.RAJESH V, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR (CONTRACT), COCHIN
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, KUTTANADU,
PULINCUNNU, ALAPPUZHA -688504, RESIDING AT NANDANAM,
EAST NADA, AMBALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA - 688561
2025:KER:68685
2
W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716,
1736 and 1842 of 2024
5 AKHILA L, AGED 36 YEARS
W/O.MR.VARUNLAL R, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR (CONTRACT),
COCHIN UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, KUTTANADU,
PULINCUNNU, ALAPPUZHA -688504, RESIDING AT
THATTAMVELIYIL, KADAKKARAPPALLY P.O. CHERTHALA,
ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688529
6 RADHIKA B, AGED 43 YEARS
D/O.K.P.BALAGOPALAN NAIR, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR
(CONTRACT), COCHIN UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING,
KUTTANADU, PULINCUNNU, ALAPPUZHA -688504, RESIDING AT
KUNNAPPALLIL, KARUKACHAL P.O. KOTTAYAM - 686540
7 VINEETH M.V, AGED 34 YEARS
S/O. M.T. VISWANKUTTY ASSISTANT PROFESSOR (CONTRACT),
COCHIN UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, KUTTANADU,
PULINCUNNU, ALAPPUZHA -688504, RESIDING AT MANGALATHU
(H), MADAKKATHANAM P.O.
VAZHAKULAM, ERNAKULAM - 686670
BY ADVS.
SHRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ
SMT.APARNA NARAYAN MENON
KUM.THULASI K. RAJ
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-, PIN - 695001
2 COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE &TECHNOLOGY
REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR, COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF
SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY UNIVERSITY ROAD, SOUTH
KALAMASSERY, KOCHI, KERALA, PIN - 682022
3 VICE CHANCELLOR,
COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY UNIVERSITY
ROAD, SOUTH KALAMASSERY, KALAMASSERY,
KOCHI, KERALA, PIN - 682022
4 DEPUTY REGISTRAR,
COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY UNIVERSITY
ROAD, SOUTH KALAMASSERY, KALAMASSERY,
KOCHI, KERALA, PIN - 682022
2025:KER:68685
3
W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716,
1736 and 1842 of 2024
5 PRINCIPAL,
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, KUTTANAD,
PULINCUNNU, ALAPPUZHA -, PIN - 688504
SMT. NISHA BOSE, SR. GOVT. PLEADER
SRI. S.P. ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAI, SC, CUSAT
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02.07.2025,
ALONG WITH WA.1694/2024, 1707/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT
ON 15.09.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:68685
4
W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716,
1736 and 1842 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025/24TH BHADRA, 1947
WA NO. 1694 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 15.10.2024 IN WP(C) NO.16606 OF
2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
JITHIN JOSE, AGED 34 YEARS
S/O. JOSE FRANCIS, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DIVISION OF
ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONICS, ENGINEERING, SCHOOL OF
ENGINEERING, CUSAT, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM-682022 RESIDING
AT: NANJILATHU (H), KOOROPPADA P.O.,
KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686502
BY ADVS.
SHRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ
SMT.APARNA NARAYAN MENON
KUM.THULASI K. RAJ
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT
OF HIGHER EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR, COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF
SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY UNIVERSITY ROAD, SOUTH
KALAMASSERY, KALAMASSERY, KOCHI,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682022
3 VICE CHANCELLOR,
2025:KER:68685
5
W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716,
1736 and 1842 of 2024
COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY UNIVERSITY
ROAD, SOUTH KALAMASSERY, KALAMASSERY, KOCHI,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682022
4 DEPUTY REGISTRAR
COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY UNIVERSITY
ROAD, SOUTH KALAMASSERY, KALAMASSERY, KOCHI,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682022
5 PRINCIPAL,
SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING, CUSAT SOUTH KALAMASSERY,
KALAMASSERY, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682022
SMT. NISHA BOSE, SR. GOVT. PLEADER
SRI. S.P. ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAI, SC, CUSAT
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02.07.2025,
ALONG WITH WA.1664/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON
15.09.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:68685
6
W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716,
1736 and 1842 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 24TH BHADRA, 1947
WA NO. 1707 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 15.10.2024 IN WP(C) NO.35305 OF 2023
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:
1 ABIN JOHN JOSEPH
AGED 36 YEARS
S/O JOSEPH JOHN, MALEKUDY HOUSE, THODUPUZHA P.O.,
IDUKKI, PIN - 685584
2 NIDHIN SANI, AGED 34 YEARS
S/O STANISLAVOUS A.M., AZHAKANAKUNNEL HOUSE,
PARAPPURAM P.O., PUTHIYEDOM, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683575
3 SANTHI KRISHNA M.S., AGED 34 YEARS
S/O PRASAD P.P., DEVI PRASADAM, KUNNAMANGALAM NORTH,
CHETTIKULANGARA P.O., MAVELIKKARA-, PIN - 690106
4 NAKUL SASIKUMAR, AGED 32 YEARS
S/O SASIKUMAR G. NAIR, ELENJICKAMALIYIL HOUSE,
ELAMAKKARA P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682026
BY ADV SHRI.K.C.VINCENT
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT
OF HIGHER EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANATHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2025:KER:68685
7
W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716,
1736 and 1842 of 2024
2 COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY(CUSAT),
COCHIN UNIVERSITY P.O., KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, PIN - 682022
3 THE VICE CHANCELLOR
COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, COCHIN
UNIVERSITY P.O., KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682022
4 THE REGISTRAR
COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, COCHIN
UNIVERSITY P.O., KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682022
5 THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR
COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, COCHIN
UNIVERSITY P.O., KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682022
6 THE PERINCIPAL
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, KUTTANAD,
PULINKUNNU, ALAPUZHA, PIN - 688504
SMT. NISHA BOSE, SR. GOVT. PLEADER
SRI. S.P. ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAI, SC, CUSAT
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02.07.2025,
ALONG WITH WA.1664/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON
15.09.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:68685
8
W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716,
1736 and 1842 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 24TH BHADRA, 1947
WA NO.1716 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 15.10.2024 IN WP(C) NO.3613 OF 2024 OF
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:
1 ANITHA MARY M.O. CHACKO
AGED 33 YEARS
W/O ABIN A.M., MAMMOOTTIL HOUSE, THALAVADY P.O.,
ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 689572
2 HAFEESA M. HABEEB, AGED 35 YEARS
W/O ANVAR SADATH A.K., HAZEENA MANZIL, I C O JUNCTION,
PERUNNA P.O., CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686102
3 AMRITHA MARY DAVIS, AGED 33 YEARS
W/O ABI PAUL MALIAKEL, KOLLANNORE HOUSE,
CHALISSERY P.O., PALAKKAD, PIN - 679536
4 ALICE JOSEPH, AGED 56 YEARS
W/O CHERIAN THOMAS, CHIRAKKAROTTU HOUSE, CHENGAROOR
P.O., MALLAPPALLY, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689594
5 ASWATHY V SHAJI, AGED 34 YEARS
W/O SUJITH K.J., VADAKKECHIRAYIL HOUSE, VETTACKAL
P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688529
BY ADV SHRI.K.C.VINCENT
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
2025:KER:68685
9
W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716,
1736 and 1842 of 2024
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT
OF HIGHER EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANATHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY(CUSAT)
COCHIN UNIVERSITY P.O., KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, PIN - 682022
3 THE VICE CHANCELLOR
COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, COCHIN
UNIVERSITY P.O., KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682022
4 THE REGISTRAR
COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, COCHIN
UNIVERSITY P.O., KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682022
5 THE PRINCIPAL
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, KUTTANAD,
PULINKUNNU, ALAPUZHA, PIN - 688504
SMT. NISHA BOSE, SR. GOVT. PLEADER
SRI. S.P. ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAI, SC, CUSAT
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02.07.2025,
ALONG WITH WA.1664/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON
15.09.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:68685
10
W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716,
1736 and 1842 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 24TH BHADRA, 1947
WA NO.1736 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 15.10.2024 IN WP(C)NO.4803 OF 2024 OF
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:
1 ABIN JOHN JOSEPH, AGED 36 YEARS
S/O JOSEPH JOHN, MALEKUDY HOUSE, THODUPUZHA P.O.,
IDUKKI, PIN - 685584
2 NIDHIN SANI, AGED 34 YEARS
S/O STANISLAVOUS A.M., AZHAKANAKUNNEL HOUSE,
PARAPPURAM P.O., PUTHIYEDOM, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683575
3 SANTHI KRISHNA M.S, AGED 34 YEARS
W/O PRASAD P.P., DEVI PRASADAM, KUNNAMANGALAM NORTH,
CHETTIKULANGARA P.O., MAVELIKKARA, PIN - 690106
4 NAKUL SASIKUMAR, AGED 32 YEARS
S/O SASIKUMAR G. NAIR, ELENJICKAMALIYIL HOUSE,
ELAMAKKARA P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682026
BY ADV SHRI.K.C.VINCENT
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT
OF HIGHER EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANATHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY(CUSAT)
2025:KER:68685
11
W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716,
1736 and 1842 of 2024
COCHIN UNIVERSITY P.O., KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, PIN - 682022
3 THE VICE CHANCELLOR,
COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, COCHIN
UNIVERSITY P.O., KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682022
4 THE REGISTRAR
COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, COCHIN
UNIVERSITY P.O., KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682022
5 THE PRINCIPAL
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, KUTTANAD,
PULINKUNNU, ALAPUZHA, PIN - 688504
SMT. NISHA BOSE, SR. GOVT. PLEADER
SRI. S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAI, SC, CUSAT
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02.07.2025,
ALONG WITH WA.1664/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON
15.09.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:68685
12
W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716,
1736 and 1842 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 24TH BHADRA, 1947
WA NO.1842 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 15.10.2024 IN WP(C)NO.4094 OF 2024 OF
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:
1 NISHANTH R, AGED 38 YEARS
S/O. MR.K.RAGHAVAN, ADV. ASSISTANT PROFESSOR
(CONTRACT), COCHIN UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING,
KUTTANADU, PULINCUNNU, ALAPPUZHA -688504, RESIDING AT
GOKULAM, 352/C, NO.10, VARAPARAMBIL ROAD,
W.KADUNGALLOOR, ALUVA, PIN - 683110
2 DEEPA NAIR, AGED 48 YEARS
W/O.JAYAKRISHNAN B, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR (CONTRACT),
COCHIN UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, KUTTANADU,
PULINCUNNU, ALAPPUZHA -688504, RESIDING AT H.NO.48,
VAISHAK, KAITHAVANA HOUSING BOARD, SANATHANAPURAM P.O.
ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688003
3 ANOOP S, AGED 33 YEARS
S/O.MR.K.K.SULAIMAN KUNJU, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR
(CONTRACT), COCHIN UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING,
KUTTANADU, PULINCUNNU, ALAPPUZHA -688504, RESIDING AT
SUDHEER MANZIL, THATHAMPALLY P.O. ALAPPUZHA, PIN -
688013
4 MALINI MOHAN, AGED 41 YEARS
W/O.RAJESH V, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR (CONTRACT), COCHIN
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, KUTTANADU,
PULINCUNNU, ALAPPUZHA -688504, RESIDING AT NANDANAM,
EAST NADA, AMBALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688561
2025:KER:68685
13
W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716,
1736 and 1842 of 2024
5 AKHILA L, AGED 36 YEARS
W/O.MR.VARUNLAL R, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR (CONTRACT),
COCHIN UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, KUTTANADU,
PULINCUNNU, ALAPPUZHA -688504, RESIDING AT
THATTAMVELIYIL, KADAKKARAPPALLY P.O. CHERTHALA,
ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688529
6 RADHIKA B, AGED 43 YEARS
D/O.K.P.BALAGOPALAN NAIR, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR
(CONTRACT), COCHIN UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING,
KUTTANADU, PULINCUNNU, ALAPPUZHA -688504, RESIDING AT
KUNNAPPALLIL, KARUKACHAL P.O. KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686540
7 VINEETH M.V, AGED 34 YEARS
S/O.M.T.VISWANKUTTY M.T ASSISTANT PROFESSOR
(CONTRACT), COCHIN UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING,
KUTTANADU, PULINCUNNU, ALAPPUZHA -688504, RESIDING AT
MANGALATHU (H), MADAKKATHANAM P.O. VAZHAKULAM
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 686670
BY ADVS.
SHRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ
SMT.APARNA NARAYAN MENON
SMT.CHINNU MARIA ANTONY
KUM.THULASI K. RAJ
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT
OF HIGHER EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE &TECHNOLOGY
REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR, COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF
SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY UNIVERSITY ROAD, SOUTH
KALAMASSERY, KALAMASSERY, KOCHI, KERALA, PIN - 682022
3 VICE CHANCELLOR,
COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE &TECHNOLOGY UNIVERSITY
ROAD, SOUTH KALAMASSERY, KALAMASSERY,
KOCHI, KERALA, PIN - 682022
4 DEPUTY REGISTRAR,
COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE &TECHNOLOGY UNIVERSITY
ROAD, SOUTH KALAMASSERY, KALAMASSERY,
2025:KER:68685
14
W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716,
1736 and 1842 of 2024
KOCHI, KERALA, PIN - 682022
5 PRINCIPAL,
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, KUTTANAD,
PULINCUNNU, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688504
SMT. NISHA BOSE, SR. GOVT. PLEADER
SRI. S.P. ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAI, SC, CUSAT
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.07.2025,
ALONG WITH WA.1664/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON
15.09.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:68685
15
W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716,
1736 and 1842 of 2024
"C.R."
JUDGMENT
Anil K. Narendran, J.
These writ appeals filed under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High
Court Act, 1958, arise out of the common judgment dated
15.10.2024 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)Nos.34727 of
2023, 35305 of 2023, 3613 of 2024, 4094 of 2024, 4803 of 2024
and 16606 of 2024.
2. W.A.No.1664 of 2024 arises out of the judgment in
W.P.(C)No.34727 of 2023; W.A.No.1716 of 2024 arises out of the
judgment in W.P.(C)No.3613 of 2024; W.A.No.1842 of 2024 arises
out of the judgment in W.P.(C)No.4094 of 2024; W.A.No.1707 of
2024 arises out of the judgment in W.P.(C)No.35305 of 2023;
W.A.No.1736 of 2024 arises out of the judgment in W.P.(C)No.
4803 of 2024; and W.A.No.1694 of 2024 arises out of the
judgment in W.P.(C)No.16606 of 2024.
3. The appellants-petitioners, who are working as
Assistant Professors, on a contract basis, in various departments
in the Engineering Colleges under the Cochin University of Science
and Technology (CUSAT), have filed those petitions, invoking the
2025:KER:68685
W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716,
1736 and 1842 of 2024
writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, seeking various reliefs, including declaratory reliefs, i.e.,
a declaration that the petitioners are eligible to continue in their
respective departments as Assistant Professors by extension of
their temporary appointments until regular appointments are
made based on a selection process; a declaration that the
petitioners are entitled to continue in their respective posts as
Assistant Professors and that, they are not liable to be replaced
by another set of temporary hands. The petitioners have also
sought for a writ of certiorari to quash the decision taken by the
Syndicate in the 713th meeting held on 22.07.2023, to the extent
of approving the recommendation of the Standing Committee of
the Syndicate on Staff and Establishment, Finance and Purchase
and Academic Matters that the continuous engagement of faculties
on a contract basis shall not exceed four years; and also the
notifications issued by the University for fresh recruitment of
Assistant Professors on contract basis in the respective disciplines,
initially for a period of one year, which may extended up to two
years, with a break during the vacation, i.e., during May and June.
4. In the writ petitions, detailed counter affidavits have
2025:KER:68685
W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716,
1736 and 1842 of 2024
been filed on behalf of the University, opposing the reliefs sought
for. In the counter affidavits, the University contended that the
engagement of the petitioners as Assistant Professors in various
departments in the Engineering Colleges under the University was
on contract basis, for a period of one year, with a break during the
vacation, i.e., during May and June. The petitioners were given
extension of their contract appointment, based on the
requirement. At the time of their initial appointment on contract
basis, as well as on the renewal or extension of the contract, the
petitioners have to execute an agreement with the University, on
stamp paper, which prescribes the specified period of their
appointment, the clauses regarding the absence of an obligation
of the part of the University to offer them continued employment
after the expiry of the contract period, etc. All the petitioners had
executed contract agreements at the time of their initial
appointment as well as at the time of the renewal or extension of
their appointment. They were granted an extension of their
contract appointment, as a special case, in the absence of a valid
rank list. True copies of the contracts executed by the petitioners
with the University at the time of their initial appointment, as well
2025:KER:68685
W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716,
1736 and 1842 of 2024
as at the time of renewal or extension of the contract, are placed
on record along with the counter affidavit filed by the University.
5. In the counter affidavits filed on behalf of the
University, it was contended that, after agreeing with the period
of appointment and executing the contracts with the University,
the petitioners are not entitled to turn around and challenge the
conditions prescribed in the said contracts or the order granting
them appointment, renewal or extension of appointment as
Assistant Professors on a contract basis. The decision of the
Syndicate of the University in its 713th meeting held on
22.07.2023 that the continuous engagement of a faculty
appointed on contract basis shall not exceed four years was taken
based on the recommendations of the Standing Committee of the
Syndicate on Staff and Establishment, Finance and Purchase and
Academic Matters that the continuous engagement of faculties on
contract basis shall not exceed four years. Vide Government letter
No.E2/94/2022/H.Edn. dated 21.02.2023, the Principal Secretary
to Government, Higher Education Department, informed the
Registrar of the University that the contract appointment of a
faculty exceeding 240 continuous days in a calendar year will fall
2025:KER:68685
W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716,
1736 and 1842 of 2024
under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act and, therefore,
the University has to limit the period of contract appointment of a
faculty to 240 days, and notify the vacancies on an annual basis.
The University issued a notification dated 06.01.2024, inviting
applications from qualified candidates for appointments to the
post of Assistant Professor in various disciplines, on a contract
basis. In the counter affidavit the University has pointed out
Clause 13.0 of the University Grants Commission (Minimum
Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic
Staff in Universities and Colleges and other Measures for the
Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations, 2018,
which prescribes that appointments of teachers on contract basis
should not be made initially for more than one academic session,
and the performance of any such entrant teacher should be
reviewed before re-appointing him/her on contract basis for
another session.
6. The two questions considered by the learned Single
Judge were as follows; whether the petitioners can claim to
continue their service even after the expiry of the period specified
in the notification and the contracts they have separately entered
2025:KER:68685
W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716,
1736 and 1842 of 2024
into with the University; and whether the restriction in granting
appointments to persons who have already put in their service as
contract employees for more than four years in the University is
proper or not.
7. After considering the rival contentions, the learned
Single Judge disposed of the writ petitions with the directions
contained in the last paragraph of the judgment dated
15.10.2024. The said paragraph reads thus;
"In such circumstances, these writ petitions are disposed of
with the following directions;
(i) The petitioners do not have the right to continue in the
posts after the completion of the terms specified in the
respective contracts entered with the University unless the
said term is extended by the University.
(ii) The restrictive clause contained in the notification dated
01.10.2023 that "the candidates who have worked for four
years or more on contract appointment in this University will
only be considered in the absence of qualified candidates
who have not completed four years of appointment on
contract basis" is not legally sustainable.
(iii) All the petitioners will have the right to participate in the
selection process notified as per the notification dated
01.10.2023 or any other notifications, irrespective of the
length of service they have already completed under
contract employment with the University.
2025:KER:68685
W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716,
1736 and 1842 of 2024
(iv) The University shall provide preference by way of
additional grace marks for the services already rendered by
the respective petitioners while conducting the selection
process for subsequent appointments, if not already
provided, by adopting a reasonable criteria determined by
the University."
8. The judgment of the learned Single Judge to the extent
of declining the relief that the petitioners shall not be replaced
with another set of temporary hands, is under challenge in these
writ appeals.
9. On 22.10.2024, when W.A.No.1664 of 2024 came up
for admission, it was admitted on file, and the respondents
entered appearance through the learned Government Pleader and
the learned Standing Counsel for Cochin University of Science and
Technology. The Division Bench passed an interim order dated
22.10.2024. Paragraphs 3 and also the last paragraph of the said
order read thus;
"3. We find that a far reaching consequence would arise if
the continuity of Assistant Professors is not allowed either
on a contract basis or otherwise, as far as the students are
concerned. If the University resorts to a contract
appointment for one year, it will have an adverse impact on
the educational system itself. The University will have to
2025:KER:68685
W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716,
1736 and 1842 of 2024
answer before this Court why they are not taking steps to
replace the contract employees with regular hands. An
affidavit shall be filed before this Court in this regard.
Taking note of the fact that the fresh appointment of the
Assistant professors on a contract basis may adversely
affect the students, and there is no reason to replace the
contract employees with another set of contract employees,
we order that the petitioners be permitted to continue until
further orders. However, if the University is proposing to
replace the contract employees with regular hands, the
University can state before this Court that the petitioners
are to be replaced by regular hands."
10. On 03.01.2025, when W.A.No.1664 of 2024 came up
for consideration along with the connected matters, a Division
Bench of this Court passed another interim order. The last
paragraph of the order dated 03.01.2025 reads thus;
"Petitioners have a prima facie case of seeking restraint of
their replacement by another set of contractual employees
by causing notification, as it would have a serious threat to
their employment on account of non-extension of their
services. Accordingly, we grant an interim stay with the
clarity that the appellants will continue to work as
contractual employees and will not be replaced by another
set of contractual employees except through the regular
process."
11. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants-
2025:KER:68685
W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716,
1736 and 1842 of 2024
petitioners in the respective writ appeals, the learned Senior
Government Pleader for the State and the learned Standing
Counsel for Cochin University of Science and Technology for the
University and its officials.
12. The learned counsel for the appellants-petitioners in
the respective writ appeals contended that the learned Single
Judge committed a grave error in declining the relief that the
appellants-petitioners shall not be replaced with another set of
temporary hands. The contentions raised by the petitioners,
relying on the decisions of the Apex Court in State of Haryana
v. Piara Singh [(1992) 4 SCC 118], Hargurpratap Singh v.
State of Punjab (2007) 13 SCC 292], Manish Gupta v.
President, Jan Bhagidari Samiti [(2022) 15 SCC 540], etc.,
were not properly understood and considered by the learned
Single Judge. The learned counsel for the appellants in
W.A.Nos.1664 of 2024, 1694 of 2024 and 1842 of 2024 has also
relied on various decisions of the High Court in which the
observation contained in paragraph 49 of the decision of the Apex
Court in Piara Singh [(1992) 4 SCC 118] was followed. The
learned counsel for the appellants in W.A.Nos.1707 of 2024, 1716
2025:KER:68685
W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716,
1736 and 1842 of 2024
of 2024 and 1736 of 2024 and also the learned counsel for the
appellant in the connected appeals would place reliance on the
decision of the Apex Court in Jaggo v. Union of India [2024
SCC OnLine SC 3826 : 2024 KHC OnLine 6750].
13. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for
Cochin University of Science and Technology and the learned
Senior Government pleader contended that the appointments of
the appellants-petitioners are purely on contract basis, subject to
the terms and conditions contained in the agreements. They have
no legal right either to claim continuance as Assistant Professors
in various Departments in the Engineering Colleges under the
University after the expiry of the period specified in the notification
and the respective contracts they have entered into with the
University or to continue in their respective post until regular
appointments are made by the University. The learned Standing
Counsel for the University relied on the decision of a Full Bench of
the Himachal Pradesh High Court in Pawan Kumar v. Union of
India [2016 SCC OnLine HP 2696 : 2017 (3) KLT SN 47], the
decisions of the Apex Court in State of Maharashtra v. Anita
[(2016) 8 SCC 293], Yogesh Mahajan v. All India Institute
2025:KER:68685
W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716,
1736 and 1842 of 2024
of Medical Sciences [(2018) 3 SCC 218], Rajasthan State
Roadways Transport Corporation v. Paramjeet Singh
[(2019) 6 SCC 250] and also the judgment of this Court in
Santhosh K.V. v. Malabar Regional Co-operative Milk
Producers Union Ltd. [2018 SCC OnLine Ker 1234 : 2018 (2)
KLJ 837]. They would also point out the relevant provisions under
the University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications for
Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities
and Colleges and other Measures for the Maintenance of
Standards in Higher Education) Regulations, 2018 and also the
previous Regulations of the year 2010.
14. The pleadings and materials on record would show that
the appellants-petitioners are appointed as Assistant Professors,
on contract basis, in various departments in the Engineering
Colleges under the Cochin University of Science and Technology.
The notifications issued by the University contemplated that the
appointments shall be for a period of one year, which may be
renewed for a maximum period of two years with break during
May-June vacation or till regular recruits join duty, whichever is
earlier. On the basis of a selection process, the appellants were
2025:KER:68685
W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716,
1736 and 1842 of 2024
included in the rank lists published by the University. Based on
that selection process, the appellants were given appointments as
Assistant Professors for the period specified in the order of
appointment. Before joining duty, all the appellants executed
agreements with the University, wherein the terms of their
appointment, including the period of appointment were specified.
On completion of the initial term of one year plus the extended
period in terms of the notifications issued by the University, the
tenure of appointment of the appellants was extended further. The
service details of the appellants-petitioners are furnished in the
statement of facts of the respective writ petitions.
15. As per the service details furnished in W.P.(C)No.34727
of 2023, the contract appointment of appellants 1 to 7 in
W.A.No.1664 of 2024 as Assistant Professors commenced on
10.01.2014, 02.07.2014, 07.10.2005, 07.09.2020, 15.01.2014,
02.07.2018 and March, 2020, respectively. As per the service
details furnished in W.P.(C)No.16606 of 2024, the contract
appointment of the appellant in W.A.No.1694 of 2024 as Assistant
Professor commenced on 01.07.2019. As per the service details
furnished in W.P.(C)No.35305 of 2023, the contract appointment
2025:KER:68685
W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716,
1736 and 1842 of 2024
of appellants 1 to 4 in W.A.No.1707 of 2024 as Assistant
Professors commenced on 11.02.2025, 24.09.2013, 08.06.2020
and 02.07.2018 respectively. As per the service details furnished
in W.P.(C)No.3613 of 2024, the contract appointment of appellants
1 to 5 in W.A.No.1716 of 2024 as Assistant Professors commenced
on 02.07.2018, 21.12.2021, 30.03.2023, 10.12.2014 and
22.11.2021, respectively. As per the service details furnished in
W.P.(C)No.4803 of 2024, the contract appointment of appellants 1
to 4 in W.A.No.1736 of 2024 as Assistant Professors commenced
on 11.02.2015, 24.09.2013, 08.06.2020 and 02.07.2018,
respectively. As per the service details furnished in
W.P.(C)No.4094 of 2024, the contract appointment of appellants 1
to 7 in W.A.No.1842 of 2024 as Assistant Professors commenced
on 10.01.2014, 02.07.2014, 07.10.2005, 07.09.2020,
05.01.2014, 02.07.2018 and March, 2020, respectively.
16. The memos issued by the Registrar of the University
offering appointment to the appellants as Assistant Professors on
contract basis in various departments in the Engineering Colleges
under the University, for a period of one year from the date of
joining or till regular recruits join duty, whichever is earlier, with
2025:KER:68685
W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716,
1736 and 1842 of 2024
break during May-June (vacation months), on payment of a
consolidated remuneration, are placed on record in the respective
writ petitions. As per the said memos, the appellants are required
to execute an agreement with the University in the prescribed
format, in a stamp paper worth Rs.200/-. The proceedings of the
Deputy Registrar (Administration), based on the reports of the
Principal of the concerned Engineering Colleges, regarding the
joining of duty by the appellants, on contract basis, enclosing
therewith the contract agreements, are also placed on record in
the respective writ petitions.
17. Along with the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the
University, the contract agreements executed by the petitioners in
the respective writ petitions are placed on record. The said
contracts executed at the time of initial appointments and also at
the time of subsequent appointments specifically provide that the
period of contract appointment shall be for the period specified in
the respective contract or till fresh contract/regular appointment
is made, whichever is earlier. During the period of contract, the
University will pay the appointee a consolidated salary of
Rs.40,000/- per month. The appointee shall not be entitled to any
2025:KER:68685
W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716,
1736 and 1842 of 2024
other emoluments or concessions for the contract period. Subject
to the conditions as above, the contract appointment shall
terminate on the expiry of the period specified in the contract.
However, either party can make an application for the earlier
termination of the contract to the other party of the contract, and
the employer reserves the right to terminate the appointment on
such application. The said contracts also provide that it shall not
be obligatory on the part of the employer to provide any
employment to the appointee on the expiry of the contract period,
nor shall it be obligatory on the part of the appointee to accept
employment under the employer after the contract period.
18. The stand taken in the counter affidavits filed on behalf
of the University in the respective writ petitions is that the
Syndicate of the University at the time of creation of posts in the
respective Engineering Colleges had resolved to appoint regular
faculties only against 50% of the posts and to fill up the rest of
the posts with contract/guest faculties. As per Annexure R2(a)
University order dated 07.12.2020, which is one issued in terms
of the guidelines for daily wages/contract appointments in
G.O(P)No.81/2019/Fin. dated 09.07.2019 issued by the
2025:KER:68685
W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716,
1736 and 1842 of 2024
Government of Kerala, initial contract appointments are made for
a period of one year and the second term of extension is granted
based on the positive recommendation of the Head of the
Department concerned. Extensions beyond two years are being
made as per the decision of the Syndicate. Usually, the candidates
are allowed to complete one term, i.e., for a period of three years,
and appointments thereafter will be made from a fresh rank list.
In cases where rank lists are not available, an extension of the
contract period will be granted for an additional six months or till
fresh recruits join duty, whichever is earlier. One of the contentions
raised on behalf of the University in the counter affidavits filed in
the respective writ petitions is that after agreeing with the period
of appointment on contract basis and executing the contract
agreements, the appellants-petitioners cannot turn around and
dispute the condition prescribed in the order granting them
contract appointment/renewal/extension. In the counter affidavit,
the University has also justified the decision taken by the
Syndicate in the meeting held on 22.07.2023, as evident from the
University order dated 09.08.2023 [Ext.P9 in W.P.(C)No.34727 of
2023], imposing a restriction in granting contract appointments to
2025:KER:68685
W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716,
1736 and 1842 of 2024
persons who have already put in their service as contract
employees for more than four years, we do not propose to deal
with those contentions in these writ appeals, since the University
has not challenged the judgment dated 15.10.2024 of the learned
Single Judge to the extent of setting aside the restrictive clause
contained in the notification dated 01.10.2023 as well as
subsequent notifications, by filing a writ appeal, invoking the
provisions under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958.
19. In Piara Singh [(1992) 4 SCC 118], a decision relied
on by the learned counsel for the appellants-petitioners, a Three-
Judge Bench of the Apex Court, while considering the
sustainability of certain directions issued by the High Court of
Panjab and Haryana in the light of various orders passed by the
State Haryana and State of Panjab for the absorption of its ad hoc
or temporary employees and daily-wagers or casual labourers,
observed that, ordinarily speaking, the creation and abolition of a
post is the prerogative of the Executive. It is the Executive again
that lays down the conditions of service, subject, of course, to a
law made by the appropriate Legislature. This power to prescribe
the conditions of service can be exercised either by making rules
2025:KER:68685
W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716,
1736 and 1842 of 2024
under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India or, in
the absence of such rules, by issuing rules/instructions in exercise
of its executive power. The court comes into the picture only to
ensure observance of fundamental rights, statutory provisions,
rules and other instructions, if any, governing the conditions of
service. The main concern of the court in such matters is to ensure
the rule of law and to see that the Executive acts fairly and gives
a fair deal to its employees consistent with the requirements of
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It also means that
the State should not exploit its employees nor should it seek to
take advantage of the helplessness and misery of either the
unemployed persons or the employees, as the case may be. As is
often said, the State must be a model employer. It is for this
reason, it is held that equal pay must be given for equal work,
which is indeed one of the directive principles of the Constitution.
It is for this very reason that it is held that a person should not be
kept in a temporary or ad hoc status for a long time. Where a
temporary or ad hoc appointment is continued for a long time, the
court presumes that there is a need and warrant for a regular post
and accordingly directs regularisation. The principles relevant in
2025:KER:68685
W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716,
1736 and 1842 of 2024
this regard are stated in several decisions, including the decisions
in Dharwad District PWD Literate Daily Wage Employees
Association v. State of Karnataka [(1990) 2 SCC 396] and
Jacob M. Puthuparambil v. Kerala Water Authority [(1991)
1 SCC 28].
19.1. In Piara Singh [(1992) 4 SCC 118], after referring
to the principles laid down in Dharwad District PWD Literate
Daily Wage Employees Association [(1990) 2 SCC 396] and
Jacob M. Puthuparambil [(1991) 1 SCC 28], the Three-Judge
Bench held that the court must, while giving directions for
regularisation, act with due care and caution. It must first
ascertain the relevant facts, and must be cognizant of the several
situations and eventualities that may arise on account of such
directions. A practical and pragmatic view has to be taken,
inasmuch as every such direction not only tells upon the public
exchequer but also has the effect of increasing the cadre strength
of a particular service, class or category. On the facts of the case
at hand, the Three-Judge Bench noticed that, apart from the fact
that the High Court was not right in holding that the several
conditions imposed by the State Haryana and State of Panjab in
2025:KER:68685
W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716,
1736 and 1842 of 2024
their respective orders relating to regularisation are arbitrary and
not valid, the High Court acted rather hastily in directing
wholesome regularisation of all such persons who have put in one
year's service, and that too unconditionally. In paragraph 25 of
the said decision, the Three-Judge Bench pointed out several
problems that would arise if such directions became the norm.
19.2. In Piara Singh [(1992) 4 SCC 118], the Three-Judge
Bench found that the direction by the High Court that all those ad
hoc/temporary employees who have continued for more than a
year should be regularised has been given without reference to
the existence of a vacancy. The direction in effect means that
every ad hoc/temporary employee who has been continued for
one year should be regularised even though (i) no vacancy is
available for him, which means creation of a vacancy; (ii) he was
not sponsored by the employment exchange nor was he appointed
in pursuance of a notification calling for applications, which means
he had entered by a back-door; (iii) he was not eligible and/or
qualified for the post at the time of his appointment; (iv) his record
of service since his appointment is not satisfactory. None of the
decisions relied upon by the High Court justify such wholesale,
2025:KER:68685
W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716,
1736 and 1842 of 2024
unconditional orders. Moreover, from the mere continuation of an
ad hoc employee for one year, it cannot be presumed that there is
a need for a regular post. Such a presumption may be justified
only when such continuance extends to several years. Further,
there can be no 'rule of thumb' in such matters. The conditions
and circumstances of one unit may not be the same as those of
the other. Just because, in one case, a direction was given to
regularise employees who have put in one year's service as far as
possible and subject to fulfilling the qualifications, it cannot be
held that in each and every case such a direction must follow
irrespective of and without taking into account the other relevant
circumstances and considerations. The relief must be moulded in
each case, having regard to all the relevant facts and
circumstances of that case. It cannot be a mechanical act but a
judicious one. Judged from this standpoint, the Three-Judge Bench
held that the impugned directions of the High Court that all those
ad hoc/temporary employees who have continued for more than
a year should be regularised are totally untenable and
unsustainable. Though persons belonging to those categories,
continuing over a number of years, have a right to claim
2025:KER:68685
W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716,
1736 and 1842 of 2024
regularisation and the authorities are under an obligation to
consider their case for regularisation in a fair manner, keeping in
view the principles enunciated in the decisions on the point, the
blanket direction given by the High Court cannot be sustained.
19.3. In Piara Singh [(1992) 4 SCC 118], the Three-Judge
Bench made certain observations, which each Government or
authority should bear in mind while devising its own criteria or
principles for regularisation of ad hoc or temporary employees in
Government service. Paragraphs 45 to 50 of the said decision read
thus;
"45. The normal rule, of course, is regular recruitment
through the prescribed agency but exigencies of
administration may sometimes call for an ad hoc or
temporary appointment to be made. In such a situation,
effort should always be to replace such an ad hoc/temporary
employee by a regularly selected employee as early as
possible. Such a temporary employee may also compete
along with others for such regular selection/appointment. If
he gets selected, well and good, but if he does not, he must
give way to the regularly selected candidate. The
appointment of the regularly selected candidate cannot be
withheld or kept in abeyance for the sake of such an ad
hoc/temporary employee.
46. Secondly, an ad hoc or temporary employee should not
2025:KER:68685
W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716,
1736 and 1842 of 2024
be replaced by another ad hoc or temporary employee; he
must be replaced only by a regularly selected employee.
This is necessary to avoid arbitrary action on the part of the
appointing authority.
47. Thirdly, even where an ad hoc or temporary
employment is necessitated on account of the exigencies of
administration, he should ordinarily be drawn from the
employment exchange unless it cannot brook delay in which
case the pressing cause must be stated on the file. If no
candidate is available or is not sponsored by the
employment exchange, some appropriate method
consistent with the requirements of Article 16 should be
followed. In other words, there must be a notice published
in the appropriate manner calling for applications and all
those who apply in response thereto should be considered
fairly.
48. An unqualified person ought to be appointed only when
qualified persons are not available through the above
processes.
49. If for any reason, an ad hoc or temporary employee is
continued for a fairly long spell, the authorities must
consider his case for regularisation provided he is eligible
and qualified according to the rules and his service record is
satisfactory and his appointment does not run counter to the
reservation policy of the State.
50. The proper course would be that each State prepares a
scheme, if one is not already in vogue, for regularisation of
such employees consistent with its reservation policy and if
2025:KER:68685
W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716,
1736 and 1842 of 2024
a scheme is already framed, the same may be made
consistent with our observations herein so as to reduce
avoidable litigation in this behalf. If and when such person
is regularised he should be placed immediately below the
last regularly appointed employee in that category, class or
service, as the case may be."
20. By the order of reference in State of Karnataka v.
Umadevi (2) [(2006) 4 SCC 44] the conflicting opinions
between the Three-Judge Bench decisions in Ashwani
Kumar v. State of Bihar [(1997) 2 SCC 1], State of
Haryana v. Piara Singh [(1992) 4 SCC 118] and Dharwad
District PWD Literate Daily Wage Employees Association
v. State of Karnataka [(1990) 2 SCC 396] on the one hand
and State of H.P. v. Suresh Kumar Verma [(1996) 7 SCC
562], State of Punjab v. Surinder Kumar [(1992) 1 SCC
489] and B.N. Nagarajan v. State of Karnataka [(1979) 4
SCC 507] on the other, was referred for consideration by a Five-
Judge Bench (Constitution Bench).
21. In State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4
SCC 1], before the Constitution Bench, it was argued by the
learned Senior Counsel for some of the respondents that based on
the doctrine of legitimate expectation, the employees, especially
2025:KER:68685
W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716,
1736 and 1842 of 2024
of the Commercial Taxes Department, should be directed to be
regularised since the decisions in Dharwad District PWD
Literate Daily Wage Employees Association [(1990) 2 SCC
396], Piara Singh [(1992) 4 SC 118], Jacob M.
Puthuparambil [(1991) 1 SCC 28] and Gujarat Agricultural
University v. Rathod Labhu Bechar [(2001) 3 SCC 574] and
the like, have given rise to an expectation in them that their
services would also be regularised.
21.1. In Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1], the Constitution
Bench held that the doctrine of legitimate expectation can be
invoked if the decisions of the administrative authority affect the
person by depriving him of some benefit or advantage which either
(i) he had in the past been permitted by the decision-maker to
enjoy and which he can legitimately expect to be permitted to
continue to do until there have been communicated to him some
rational grounds for withdrawing it on which he has been given an
opportunity to comment; or (ii) he has received assurance from
the decision-maker that they will not be withdrawn without giving
him first an opportunity of advancing reasons for contending that
they should not be withdrawn. Lord Diplock in Council for Civil
2025:KER:68685
W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716,
1736 and 1842 of 2024
Services Union v. Minister of Civil Service [1985 AC 374 :
(1984) 3 All ER 935], National Buildings Construction
Corporation v. S. Raghunathan [(1998) 7 SCC 66] and Dr.
Chanchal Goyal v. State of Rajasthan [(2003) 3 SCC 485].
There is no case that any assurance was given by the Government
or the Department concerned while making the appointment on
daily wages that the status conferred on him will not be withdrawn
until some rational reason comes into existence for withdrawing
it. The very engagement was against the constitutional scheme.
Though the Commissioner of the Commercial Taxes Department
sought to get the appointments made permanent, there is no case
that at the time of appointment any promise was held out. No such
promise could also have been held out in view of the circulars and
directives issued by the Government after the decision in
Dharwad District PWD Literate Daily Wage Employees
Association [(1990) 2 SCC 396]. Though there is a case that
the State had made regularisations in the past of similarly situated
employees, the fact remains that such regularisations were done
only pursuant to judicial directions, either of the Administrative
Tribunal or that of the High Court and in some cases by the Apex
2025:KER:68685
W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716,
1736 and 1842 of 2024
Court. Moreover, the invocation of the doctrine of legitimate
expectation cannot enable the employees to claim that they must
be made permanent or they must be regularised in service, though
they had not been selected in terms of the rules for appointment.
The fact that, in certain cases, the court had directed
regularisation of the employees involved in those cases cannot be
made use of to found a claim based on legitimate expectation. The
argument, if accepted, would also run counter to the
Constitutional mandate. Therefore, the Constitution Bench
rejected the arguments of the respondents based on the doctrine
of legitimate expectation.
21.2. In Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1], the Constitution
Bench held that when a person enters a temporary employment
or gets engagement as a contractual or casual worker and the
engagement is not based on a proper selection, as recognised by
the relevant rules or procedure, he is aware of the consequences
of the appointment being temporary, casual or contractual in
nature. Such a person cannot invoke the theory of legitimate
expectation for being confirmed in the post when an appointment
to the post could be made only by following a proper procedure
2025:KER:68685
W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716,
1736 and 1842 of 2024
for selection, and in cases concerned, in consultation with the
Public Service Commission. Therefore, the theory of legitimate
expectation cannot be successfully advanced by temporary,
contractual or casual employees. It cannot also be held that the
State has held out any promise while engaging these persons
either to continue them where they are or to make them
permanent. The State cannot constitutionally make such a
promise. It is also obvious that the theory of legitimate
expectation cannot be invoked to seek a positive relief of being
made permanent in the post.
21.3. In Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1], before the
Constitution Bench, it was contended that the rights of the
employees engaged on daily wages, under Articles 14 and 16 of
the Constitution, are violated. It was also contended that the State
has treated the employees unfairly by employing them on less
than minimum wages and extracting work from them for a pretty
long period, in comparison with those directly recruited, who are
getting more wages or salaries for doing similar work. The
Constitution Bench noticed that the employees before the court
were engaged on daily wages in the Department concerned, on a
2025:KER:68685
W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716,
1736 and 1842 of 2024
wage that was made known to them. There is no case that the
wage agreed upon was not being paid. Those who are working on
daily wages formed a class by themselves; they cannot claim that
they are discriminated as against those who have been regularly
recruited on the basis of the relevant rules. No right can be
founded on an employment on daily wages to claim that such
employee should be treated on a par with a regularly recruited
candidate, and made permanent in employment, even assuming
that the principle could be invoked for claiming equal wages for
equal work. There is no fundamental right for those who have been
employed on daily wages or temporarily or on a contractual basis
to claim that they have a right to be absorbed in service. They
cannot be said to be holders of a post, since a regular appointment
could be made only by making an appointment consistent with the
requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
The right to be treated equally with other employees employed on
daily wages cannot be extended to a claim for equal treatment
with those who were regularly employed. That would be treating
unequals as equals. It cannot also be relied on to claim a right to
be absorbed in service even though they have never been selected
2025:KER:68685
W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716,
1736 and 1842 of 2024
in terms of the relevant recruitment rules. Therefore, the
Constitution Bench overruled the arguments based on Articles 14
and 16 of the Constitution of India.
21.4. In Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1], before the
Constitution Bench, it was contended that the State action in not
regularising the employees was not fair, within the framework of
the rule of law. The Constitution Bench found that the rule of law
compels the State to make appointments as envisaged by the
Constitution and in the manner indicated in the earlier paragraphs
of the judgment. In most of these cases, no doubt, the employees
had worked for some length of time, but this has also been
brought about by the pendency of proceedings in tribunals and
courts initiated at the instance of the employees. Moreover,
accepting an argument of this nature would mean that the State
would be permitted to perpetuate an illegality in the matter of
public employment, which would be a negation of the
constitutional scheme adopted by the court, the people of India.
It is, therefore, not possible to accept the argument that there
must be a direction to make permanent all the persons employed
on daily wages. When the court is approached for relief by way of
2025:KER:68685
W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716,
1736 and 1842 of 2024
a writ, the court has necessarily to ask itself whether the person
before it had any legal right to be enforced. Considered in the light
of the constitutional scheme, it cannot be said that the employees
have been able to establish a legal right to be made permanent,
even though they have never been appointed in terms of the
relevant rules or in adherence to Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India.
21.5. In Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1], the Constitution
Bench noticed that, normally, what is sought for by temporary
employees when they approach the court is a writ of mandamus
directing the employer, the State or its instrumentalities, to absorb
them in permanent service or to allow them to continue. In this
context, the question to be considered is whether a mandamus
could be issued in favour of such persons. In the decision in Dr.Rai
Shivendra Bahadur v. Governing Body of the Nalanda
College [1962 Supp (2) SCR 144], which arose out of a refusal
to promote the writ petitioner as the Principal of a college, the
Constitution Bench held that in order that a mandamus may issue
to compel the authorities to do something, it must be shown that
the statute imposes a legal duty on the authority and the
2025:KER:68685
W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716,
1736 and 1842 of 2024
aggrieved party had a legal right under the statute or rule to
enforce it. This classical position continues and a mandamus could
not be issued in favour of the employees directing the Government
to make them permanent, since the employees cannot show that
they have an enforceable legal right to be permanently absorbed
or that the State has a legal duty to make them permanent.
21.6. In Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1], the Constitution
Bench clarified that there may be cases where irregular
appointments (not illegal appointments), as explained in State of
Mysore v. S.V. Narayanappa [AIR 1967 SC 1071], R.N.
Nanjundappa v. T. Thimmiah [(1972) 1 SCC 409] and B.N.
Nagarajan v. State of Karnataka [(1979) 4 SCC 507] of duly
qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been
made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or
more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of
tribunals. The question of regularisation of the services of such
employees may have to be considered on merits, in the light of
the principles settled by the court in the cases referred to in the
judgment of the Constitution Bench and in the light of the said
judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State
2025:KER:68685
W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716,
1736 and 1842 of 2024
Governments and their instrumentalities were directed to take
steps to regularise as a one-time measure, the services of
such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or
more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the
courts or of tribunals and to further ensure that regular
recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts
that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees
or daily wagers are being now employed. The Union of India, the
State Governments and their instrumentalities were directed to
set in motion the process within six months from the date of the
judgment. The Constitution Bench clarified that any regularisation,
if already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based
on the judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the
constitutional requirement and regularising or making permanent
those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme. In
paragraph 54 of the decision, [@ page 42 of SCC], the Constitution
Bench clarified that those decisions which run counter to the
principle settled in this decision, or in which directions running
counter to what has been held herein, will stand denuded of their
status as precedents.
2025:KER:68685
W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716,
1736 and 1842 of 2024
22. In Hargurpratap Singh v. State of Punjab [(2007)
13 SCC 292], another decision relied on by the learned counsel
for the appellants-petitioners, a Two-Judge Bench of the Apex
Court was dealing with a case in which the appellants were
employed on ad hoc basis in several colleges in the State of
Punjab. There being a threat of termination of their services, they
filed writ petitions before the High Court seeking regularisation,
minimum pay scale, and to continue in their present posts until
regular appointments are made. All the reliefs were rejected by
the High Court. Insofar as the relief to continue them in their
present posts until regular incumbents are appointed, the High
Court held that the Government will have to follow its policy
decision dated 23.07.2001. The Apex Court held that though the
appellants may not be entitled to regular appointment as such, it
cannot be said that they will not be entitled to the minimum of the
pay scale, nor that they should not be continued till regular
incumbents are appointed. The course adopted by the High Court
is to displace one ad hoc arrangement by another ad hoc
arrangement, which is not at all appropriate for these persons,
who have gained experience, which will be more beneficial and
2025:KER:68685
W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716,
1736 and 1842 of 2024
useful to the colleges concerned, rather than to appoint persons
afresh on ad hoc basis. Therefore, the Apex Court set aside the
orders made by the High Court to the extent the same deny the
claim of the appellants of minimum pay scale and continuation in
service till regular incumbents are appointed. The Apex Court
directed that the appellants shall be continued in service till
regular appointments are made, on a minimum of the pay scale.
23. In Manish Gupta v. Jan Bhagidari Samiti [(2022)
15 SCC 540], another decision relied on by the learned counsel
for the appellants-petitioners, a Two-Judge Bench of the Apex
Court was dealing with a case in which the State of Madhya
Pradesh, vide notification dated 30.09.1996, started a scheme
known as "Jan Bhagidari Scheme", as per which, the Government
had decided that the local management of the Government
colleges was to be handed over to a Committee, namely, Jan
Bhagidari Samiti, to ensure public participation in the Government
colleges. Vide Government order dated 05.10.2001, the State
Government decided to commence some courses on a self-
financing basis. For such courses, the appointments were to be
made on a contractual/tenure basis, and the honorarium of the
2025:KER:68685
W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716,
1736 and 1842 of 2024
teachers and other staff was to be decided by the said Committee.
In pursuance to the said Scheme, an advertisement came to be
published in the year 2014, for the appointment of teachers as
guest faculty, for the academic year 2014-15 in different colleges.
The writ petitioners, having the requisite qualifications, applied to
the advertised posts, in pursuance to the said advertisement.
Upon their selection by the duly constituted Committee, they were
appointed. After the end of the academic year, they were
discontinued from service. Fresh advertisements were issued for
the next academic year 2015-16. Being aggrieved thereby, the
writ petitioners approached the High Court. The writ petition was
allowed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment dated
29.09.2016 in Writ Petition (Civil)No.4716 of 2016, whereby it was
ordered that the writ petitioners would continue to work on their
respective posts till regular selections were made. It was also
ordered that the writ petitioners were entitled to get the salary in
accordance with the UGC Circular issued in February 2010. Being
aggrieved by the judgment, the State Government, as well as the
President of the respective Jan Bhagidari Samitis, preferred writ
appeals before the Division Bench. The Division Bench of the High
2025:KER:68685
W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716,
1736 and 1842 of 2024
Court, by the judgment dated 08.02.2017 - State of
M.P. v. Ramveer Singh Gurjar [2017 SCC OnLine MP 1606]
- allowed the writ appeals and set aside the judgment of the
learned Single Judge. Being aggrieved, appeals by way of special
leave were filed before the Apex Court.
23.1. In Manish Gupta [(2022) 15 SCC 540], before the
Apex Court, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants
contended that the appellants were duly qualified and were
selected in accordance with a due selection process and were
required to undergo the selection process in every academic year.
The modus operandi of the Government colleges was to engage
the services of the appellants at the beginning of the academic
session and to discontinue them at the end of the academic
session, and again to issue fresh advertisements for the next
academic session. In response to the same, the candidates were
again required to follow the selection process to get appointed.
Though there was sufficient workload for regular posts, the
appellants were deprived of regular employment. In any case, the
appellants have not sought for regularisation. The only relief
claimed was for the continuation of their services till duly selected
2025:KER:68685
W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716,
1736 and 1842 of 2024
candidates were appointed. Therefore, the Division Bench of the
High Court went wrong in setting aside the judgment of the
learned Single Judge. On the other hand, the learned Additional
Solicitor General of India submitted that the appellants were
appointed in accordance with the Jan Bhagidari Scheme. Under
the said Scheme, the Government colleges were required to run
various courses on a self-financing basis. The expenditure for the
same was to be met from the tuition fees received from the
students. The appointments of appellants were neither ad hoc nor
temporary. Their services were as Guest Lecturers and were on a
contractual basis for 11 months. The requirement of Guest
Lecturers was from year to year, based on the number of students
available for particular course(s). The said Scheme itself provides
for the appointment of lecturers on a guest faculty basis, and as
such, since the appellants have chosen not to challenge the said
Scheme, the Division Bench rightly allowed the writ appeals and
dismissed the writ petitions.
23.2. In Manish Gupta [(2022) 15 SCC 540], the Apex
Court noticed that a perusal of Annexure A2 advertisement dated
24.06.2016 issued by the Principal, Government Kamla Raja Girls
2025:KER:68685
W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716,
1736 and 1842 of 2024
Post Graduate Autonomous College, Gwalior and Annexure P3
advertisement dated 02.07.2016 issued by the Principal, SMS
Government Model Science College, Gwalior would show that the
appointments were to be made after the candidates had gone
through due selection procedure. From the nature of the
advertisements, it could be seen that the appellants were
appointed on an ad hoc basis and not as Guest Lecturers, as urged
by the learned Additional Solicitor General of India. It is a settled
principle of law that an ad hoc employee cannot be replaced by
another ad hoc employee, and he can be replaced only by another
candidate who is regularly appointed by following a regular
procedure prescribed. Rattan Lal v. State of Haryana [(1985)
4 SCC 43] and Hargurpratap Singh v. State of Punjab
[(2007) 13 SCC 292]. In that view of the matter, the Apex Court
found that no error was committed by the learned Single Judge of
the High Court by directing the writ petitioners to continue to work
on their respective posts till regular selections are made. However,
the Apex Court found that the direction issued by the learned
Single Judge that the writ petitioners would be entitled to get the
salary in accordance with the UGC Circular is not sustainable, since
2025:KER:68685
W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716,
1736 and 1842 of 2024
the advertisements clearly provided that the selected candidates
would be paid the honorarium to be determined by the Jan
Bhagidari Samiti. The Apex Court found substance in the
submission made on behalf of the respondent State that
continuation of the appellants would depend on the number of
students offering themselves for the courses concerned. In that
view of the matter, the Apex Court allowed the appeals in part.
24. In Rattan Lal v. State of Haryana [(1985) 4 SCC
43], the question which came up for consideration before a Two-
Judge Bench of the Apex Court was whether it is open to the State
of Haryana to appoint teachers on an ad hoc basis at the
commencement of an academic year and terminate their services
before the commencement of the next summer vacation, or
earlier, to appoint them again on an ad hoc basis at the
commencement of next academic year and to terminate their
services before the commencement of the succeeding summer
vacation or earlier and to continue to do so year after year. A
substantial number of such ad hoc appointments were made in the
existing vacancies which have remained unfilled for three to four
years.
2025:KER:68685
W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716,
1736 and 1842 of 2024
24.1. In Rattan Lal [(1985) 4 SCC 43], the Apex Court
noticed that it is the duty of the State Government to take steps
to appoint teachers in the vacancies in accordance with the rules
as early as possible. The State Government have failed to
discharge that duty in the cases at hand. It has been appointing
teachers for quite some time on an ad hoc basis for short periods,
without any justifiable reason. In some cases, the appointments
are made for a period of six months only, and they are renewed
after a break of a few days. The number of teachers in the State
of Haryana, who are thus appointed on an ad hoc basis, is very
large. If the teachers have been appointed regularly, they would
have been entitled to the benefits of summer vacation along with
the salary and allowances payable in respect of that period and to
all other privileges, such as casual leave, medical leave, maternity
leave, etc., available to all Government servants. These benefits
are denied to the ad hoc teachers unreasonably, on account of the
pernicious system of appointment adopted by the State
Government. The ad hoc teachers are unnecessarily subjected to
an arbitrary "hiring and firing" policy. These teachers, who
constitute the bulk of the educated unemployed, are compelled to
2025:KER:68685
W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716,
1736 and 1842 of 2024
accept these jobs on an ad hoc basis with miserable conditions of
service. The Government appears to be exploiting this situation.
This is not a sound personnel policy. It is bound to have serious
repercussions on the educational institutions and the children
studying there. The Apex Court found that the policy of "ad
hocism" followed by the State Government for a long period has
led to the breach of Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution of
India, which cannot be permitted to last any longer. The State
Government is expected to function as a model employer.
Therefore, the Apex Court directed the State Government to take
immediate steps to fill up, in accordance with the relevant rules,
the vacancies in which teachers appointed on an ad hoc basis are
now working, and to allow all those teachers, who are now holding
these posts on ad hoc basis, to remain in those posts till the
vacancies are duly filled up. The teachers, who are working on
such ad hoc basis, if they have the prescribed qualification, may
also apply for being appointed regularly in those posts. The State
Government was directed to consider sympathetically the question
of relaxing the qualification of maximum age prescribed for
appointment to those posts, in the case of those who have been
2025:KER:68685
W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716,
1736 and 1842 of 2024
victims of this system of "ad hoc" appointments. It was also
ordered that, if any of the petitioners has under any existing rule
acquired the right to be treated as a regularly appointed teacher,
their case shall be considered by the State Government, and an
appropriate order may be passed in their case. It was also ordered
that the "ad hoc" teachers shall be paid salary and allowances for
the period of summer vacation as long as they hold the office
under the order of the Apex Court, and that those who are entitled
to maternity or medical leave shall also be granted such leave in
accordance with the rules.
25. In Jaggo v. Union of India [2024 SCC OnLine SC
3826 : 2024 KHC OnLine 6750], a decision relied on by the
learned counsel for the appellants-petitioners, a Two-Judge Bench
of the Apex Court noticed that it is a disconcerting reality that
temporary employees, particularly in Government institutions,
often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the
foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to
address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly
become a mechanism to evade long-term obligations owed to
employees. In the said decision, the Apex Court noticed that the
2025:KER:68685
W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716,
1736 and 1842 of 2024
decision of the Constitution Bench in Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4
SCC 1] does not intend to penalise employees who have rendered
long years of service fulfilling ongoing and necessary functions of
the State or its instrumentalities. The said decision sought to
prevent backdoor entries and illegal appointments that circumvent
constitutional requirements. While the decision sought to curtail
the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered
to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are
often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of
long-serving employees.
26. In Travancore Devaswom Board v. Deputy
Examiner for Local Fund Audit [2025 KHC OnLine 1782], a
decision relied on by the learned counsel for the appellants-
petitioners in W.A.Nos.1664 of 2024, 1694 of 2024 and 1842 of
2024, a Division Bench of this Court in which one among us [Anil
K. Narendran, J.] was a party, was dealing with an application filed
by the Travancore Devaswom Board, seeking permission to
regularise the services of three daily wage employees who were
working as Part-time Kazhakam/Thali under the Board, those
employees has completed five years of service before 31.03.2012.
2025:KER:68685
W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716,
1736 and 1842 of 2024
By the judgment dated 31.05.2012 in W.P.(C)No.6021 of 2011, a
Division Bench of this Court granted permission to the Board to
regularise daily wage employees who had completed five years of
service as on 31.03.2012. While 28 other similarly situated
employees were regularised pursuant to the said judgment of the
Division Bench, the names of the above three employees were
inadvertently omitted from the list for regularisation. The question
that came up for consideration before the Division Bench was
whether the omission on the part of the Travancore Devaswom
Board to include the name of the above three employees in the
list prepared following the earlier judgment of the Division Bench
would deny them regularisation, when 28 other daily wage
employees who were similarly situated were regularised.
26.1. In Travancore Devaswom Board [2025 KHC
OnLine 1782], the Division Bench noticed that the extent, ambit
and applicability of the principles of law laid down by the
Constitution Bench in Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] were
explained in Jaggo [2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826]. The Apex
Court proceeded to hold in Jaggo [2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826]
that while the judgment in Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1]
2025:KER:68685
W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716,
1736 and 1842 of 2024
sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure
appointments adhering to Constitutional principles, it is
regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or
misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long-serving employees.
This judgment aimed to distinguish between 'illegal' and 'irregular'
appointments. It categorically held that employees in irregular
appointments, who were engaged in duly sanctioned posts and
had served continuously for more than ten years, should be
considered for regularisation as a one-time measure. However, the
laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when
institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of
employees, even in cases where their appointments are not illegal,
but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities. Government
departments often cite the judgment in Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4
SCC 1] to argue that no vested right for regularisation exists for
temporary employees, overlooking the judgment's explicit
acknowledgement of cases where regularisation is appropriate.
This selective application distorts the judgment's spirit and
purpose, effectively weaponising it against employees who have
rendered indispensable services over decades. In Official
2025:KER:68685
W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716,
1736 and 1842 of 2024
Liquidator v. Dayanand [(2008) 10 SCC 1], the Three-Judge
Bench held that the law laid down by the Apex Court in Umadevi
(3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] cannot be diluted by Benches of lesser
strength. The modification attempted to be brought about by a
Bench of Two-Judges of the Apex Court in U.P. State Electricity
Board v. Pooran Chandra Pandey [(2007) 11 SCC 92] was
held to be obiter dictum as well. But the 1999 Scheme evolved by
the Government for absorption of the company-paid staff only to
the extent of 50% vacancies in the direct recruitment quota of
Group C posts, was held to be not unconstitutional. As such, it
cannot be said that the ratio in Dayanand [(2008) 10 SCC 1]
will stand in the way of considering the claim of respondents No.3
to 5 in the application filed by the Travancore Devaswom Board.
27. In Pawan Kumar v. Union of India [2016 SCC
OnLine HP 2696 : 2017 (3) KLT SN 47], a decision relied on
by the learned Standing Counsel for Cochin University of Science
and Technology, a Full Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court
considered the question whether an employee, who is appointed
purely on contractual basis for a fixed tenure in accordance with a
non-statutory scheme, i.e., Ex-Servicemen Contributory Health
2025:KER:68685
W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716,
1736 and 1842 of 2024
Scheme, which provides for appointment of staff on contract basis,
can claim that his appointment be made co-terminus with the
scheme or in the alternative his services be continued till the age
of superannuation or would his services be liable to be terminated
on the expiry of the period of contract, as provided for in the
scheme. As per Para.8(d) of the said scheme, the employment of
the staff will be entirely contractual in nature and will normally be
for a period of two years at the maximum, subject to review of
their conduct and performance after twelve months. In pursuance
of the said scheme, all the petitioners have been appointed on
different dates on a contractual basis, and their services have been
dispensed with, on cessation of their contractual period. Feeling
aggrieved, they have filed the writ petitions. Before the Full Bench,
the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners contended that ad
hoc or temporary employees cannot be replaced by other ad
hoc or temporary employees and placed heavy reliance upon the
observation made in the decision of the Three-Judge Bench of the
Apex Court in Piara Singh [(1992) 4 SCC 118], more
particularly, paragraph 46 that an ad hoc or temporary employee
should not be replaced by another ad hoc or temporary employee;
2025:KER:68685
W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716,
1736 and 1842 of 2024
he must be replaced only by a regularly selected employee. This
is necessary to avoid arbitrary action on the part of the appointing
authority.
27.1. In Pawan Kumar [2016 SCC OnLine HP 2696], the
Full Bench found that the aforesaid ratio in Piara Singh [(1992)
4 SCC 118] is not clearly applicable to the facts obtaining in the
cases at hand, as it cannot be disputed that the petitioners were
selected and thereafter appointed pursuant to an advertisement,
which never envisaged appointment on permanent basis and were
to be appointed only on contractual basis. Once the appointments
were purely contractual, then by efflux of time as envisaged in the
contract itself the same came to an end and the persons holding
such posts can have no right to continue or renewal of the contract
of service as a matter of right, and therefore, such cases are
clearly distinguishable from repeated and ad hoc appointments,
which was adopted as a matter of practice by the State
Government in case of Piara Singh [(1992) 4 SCC 118]. The
difference in the fact situation obtaining in the cases at hand vis-
à-vis Piara Singh [(1992) 4 SCC 118] is stark and clear. In the
cases at hand, the petitioners were appointed on a fixed-term
2025:KER:68685
W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716,
1736 and 1842 of 2024
contract. After the lapse of the period of service, they are claiming
continuity of the same. Therefore, their services cannot be
equated with the ad hoc employment as in the case of Piara
Singh [(1992) 4 SCC 118]. The ad hoc appointment against a
vacancy by the State, repeated with a number of vacancies, one
after another, was construed to be an unfair practice by the Apex
Court, and it accordingly directed the State to frame a scheme for
regularisation of such employees consistent with the reservation
policy, if not already framed. Therefore, the judgment in Piara
Singh [(1992) 4 SCC 118] cannot be blindly applied to the facts
of the cases at hand, where the petitioners have been appointed
on a fixed-term contractual appointment and after lapse of the
period of contract, are claiming the continuation of the term by
excluding other persons from seeking a similar term of
appointment. The Full Bench noticed that the petitioners had
voluntarily accepted the appointment granted to them, subject to
the conditions clearly stipulated in the scheme. These
appointments, subject to the conditions, have been accepted with
their eyes wide open; therefore, now the petitioners cannot turn
around and claim higher rights, ignoring the conditions subject to
2025:KER:68685
W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716,
1736 and 1842 of 2024
which the appointments were accepted. The Full Bench answered
the question referred to it by holding that the petitioners, who
have been appointed purely on contractual basis for a fixed term,
in accordance with the non-statutory scheme, have no right to
claim higher right than what is envisaged in their contract of the
appointment and the same would automatically come to an end
by efflux of time in terms of the contract. The petitioners holding
such posts have no right to continue or claim renewal of the
contract, save and except, if so provided in the scheme itself.
Therefore, they cannot lay claim that the appointments be made
co-terminus with the scheme or, in the alternative, that their
services be continued till they attain the age of superannuation.
28. In State of Maharashtra v. Anita [(2016) 8 SCC
293], a decision relied on by the learned Standing Counsel for
Cochin University of Science and Technology, a Three-Judge Bench
of the Apex Court was dealing a batch of appeals filed against the
order dated 28.03.2012 of the Aurangabad Bench of the High
Court of Bombay - Rajendra v. State of Maharashtra [2012
SCC OnLine Bom 478] - whereby 471 posts of Legal Advisors,
Law Officers and Law Instructors created by Government
2025:KER:68685
W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716,
1736 and 1842 of 2024
Resolutions dated 21.08.2006 and 15.09.2006 for appointment on
contractual basis under the Director General of Police and the
Commissioner of Police, Greater Mumbai, were held to be
permanent in nature. The Apex Court noticed that, in the
Government Resolution dated 21.08.2006, while creating 471
posts in various cadres, including Legal Advisors, Law Officers and
Law Instructors, in Clause (3) of the said Resolution, it was made
clear that the posts created ought to be filled up on a contractual
basis. Clause (3) reads as under:
"The said posts, instead of being filled in the regular manner,
should be kept vacant and should be filled on the contract
basis as per the terms and conditions prescribed by the
Government or having prepared the Recruitment Rules,
should be filled as per the provisions therein."
Subsequently, the said Resolution was modified by Government
Resolution dated 15.09.2006. In the said Resolution, the column
specifying "Pay Scale" was substituted with the column "Combined
Permissible Monthly Pay + Telephone & Travel Expenses".
However, there was no change in the decision of the Government
on filling up the posts on a contractual basis. The Government
Resolution dated 15.09.2006 stipulates the terms and conditions
2025:KER:68685
W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716,
1736 and 1842 of 2024
of the contractual appointments. Clauses A, B, C and D read as
under:
"A. The appointment of the said posts would be completely
on contractual basis. These officers/employees would not be
counted as government employees.
B. The said appointments should be made on contract basis,
firstly for 11 months. After 11 months, the term of the
agreement could be increased from time to time if
necessary. Whereas, the appointing authority would take
the precaution while extending the terms in this manner
that, at one time, this term should not be more than 11
months. The appointment in this way could be made
maximum three times. Thereafter, if the competent
authority is of the opinion that the reappointment of such
candidate is necessary then such candidate would have to
again face the selection process.
C. The appointing authority concerned at the time of the
appointment would execute an agreement with the
candidate concerned in the prescribed format. The
prescribed format of the agreement is given in Appendix 'B'.
It would be the responsibility of the office concerned to
preserve all the documents of the agreement.
D. Except for the combined pay and permissible telephone
and travel expenses (more than the abovementioned limit),
any other allowances would not be admissible for the
officers/employees being appointed on contract basis."
28.1. In Anita [(2016) 8 SCC 293], the Three-Judge Bench
2025:KER:68685
W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716,
1736 and 1842 of 2024
found that the intention of the State Government to fill up the
posts of Legal Advisors, Law Officers and Law Instructors on a
contractual basis is manifest from the above clauses in
Government Resolutions dated 21.08.2006 and 15.09.2006. While
creating 471 posts vide Resolution dated 21.08.2006, the
Government made it clear that the posts should be filled up on a
contractual basis as per the terms and conditions prescribed by
the Government. As per Clause 'B' of the Government Resolution
dated 15.09.2006, the initial contractual period of appointment is
eleven months, and there is a provision for extension of contract
for further eleven months. Clause 'B' makes it clear that the
appointment could be made maximum three times, and extension
of the contract beyond the third term is not allowed. If the
competent authority is of the opinion that the reappointment of
such candidates is necessary, then such candidates would again
have to face the selection process. The respondents at the time of
appointment have accepted an agreement in accordance with
Appendix 'B' attached to the Government Resolution dated
15.09.2006. The terms of the agreement specifically lay down that
the appointment is purely contractual and that the respondents
2025:KER:68685
W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716,
1736 and 1842 of 2024
will not be entitled to claim any rights, interests and benefits
whatsoever of permanent service in the Government. In
paragraph 16 of the decision, the Apex Court extracted the
relevant clauses in the format of the agreement. The Apex Court
found that the above terms of the agreement further reiterate the
stand of the State that the appointments were purely contractual
and that the respondents shall not be entitled to claim any right
or interest of permanent service in the Government. The
appointments of the respondents were made initially for eleven
months, but were renewed twice, and after serving the maximum
contractual period, the services of the respondents came to an
end, and the Government initiated a fresh process of selection.
The conditions of the respondents' engagement are governed by
the terms of agreement. Therefore, the Apex Court held that, after
having accepted the contractual appointment, the respondents are
estopped from challenging the terms of their appointment.
Furthermore, the respondents are not precluded from applying for
the said posts afresh, subject to the satisfaction of other eligibility
criteria. The creation of posts was only for administrative purposes
for sanction of the amount towards expenditure incurred, but
2025:KER:68685
W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716,
1736 and 1842 of 2024
merely because the posts were created, they cannot be held to be
permanent in nature. When the Government has taken a policy
decision to fill up 471 posts of Legal Advisors, Law Officers and
Law Instructors on a contractual basis, the Tribunal and the High
Court ought not to have interfered with the policy decision to hold
that the appointments are permanent in nature.
29. In Yogesh Mahajan v. All India Institute of
Medical Sciences [(2018) 3 SCC 218], a decision relied on by
the learned Standing Counsel for Cochin University of Science and
Technology, a Two-Judge Bench of the Apex Court was dealing with
a case in which the petitioner was initially engaged on a contract
basis as a Technical Assistant (ENT) in the All India Institute of
Medical Sciences in 1998. The initial contract was for a period of
three months, but it was renewed from time to time, without any
artificial breaks, on a quarterly or a six-monthly basis. It appears
that the services of the petitioner were taken on a contract basis
without following any laid-down procedure and without adherence
to any rules. The contract of the petitioner was finally extended
from 01.01.2010 to 30.06.2010. When the contract of the
petitioner was not renewed after 30.06.2010, he approached the
2025:KER:68685
W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716,
1736 and 1842 of 2024
Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing
O.A.No.4104 of 2010. The OA was subsequently amended, but the
essential prayer of the petitioner was to the effect that the order
dated 24.11.2010 passed by the All India Institute of Medical
Sciences, declining to extend his contract ad hoc appointment by
a further period of six months ought to be quashed. By the order
dated 25.07.2011 the Central Administrative Tribunal declined to
grant the relief to the petitioner on the ground that it had no right
to an extension of his services and further, he had no right to be
regularised as a Technical Assistant since his appointment on a
contractual basis or on an ad hoc basis was made without following
any laid down procedure and without following any rules. Feeling
aggrieved by the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal,
the petitioner preferred a review petition, which ended in
dismissal. The petitioner preferred a writ petition in the Delhi High
Court, which also ended in dismissal by the judgment dated
19.12.2011, holding that reliance placed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal on the decision of the Apex Court
in Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] was correct. The High Court
has also recorded the submission of the learned counsel for All
2025:KER:68685
W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716,
1736 and 1842 of 2024
India Institute of Medical Sciences that no contract employee in
the ENT Department had been granted an extension after
01.01.2009. The petitioner preferred a review petition, which also
ended in dismissal by the order dated 24.01.2012. In such
circumstances, the petitioner approached the Apex Court.
29.1. In Yogesh Mahajan [(2018) 3 SCC 218], the Two-
Judge Bench found that it is settled law that no contract employee
has a right to have his or her contract renewed from time to time.
That being so, the Apex Court was in agreement with the Central
Administrative Tribunal and the High Court that the petitioner was
unable to show any statutory or other right to have his contract
extended beyond 30.06.2010. At best, the petitioner could claim
that the authorities concerned should consider extending his
contract. The Apex Court found that, in fact, due consideration
was given to this and in spite of a favourable recommendation
having been made, the All India Institute of Medical Sciences did
not find it appropriate or necessary to continue with his services
on a contractual basis. The Apex Court found no arbitrariness in
the view taken by the authorities concerned and therefore rejected
this contention of the petitioner. The Apex Court was also in
2025:KER:68685
W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716,
1736 and 1842 of 2024
agreement with the view expressed by the Central Administrative
Tribunal and the High Court that the petitioner is not entitled to
the benefit of the decision of this Court in Umadevi (3) [(2006)
4 SCC 1]. There is nothing on record to indicate that the
appointment of the petitioner on a contractual basis or on an ad
hoc basis was made in accordance with any regular procedure or
by following the necessary rules. That being so, no right accrues
in favour of the petitioner for regularisation of his services. The
decision in Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] does not advance
the case of the petitioner.
30. In Santhosh K.V. v. Malabar Regional Co-
operative Milk Producers Union Ltd. [2018 SCC OnLine Ker
1234 : 2018 (2) KLJ 837], a decision relied on by the learned
Standing Counsel for Cochin University of Science and Technology,
which was one rendered by one among us [Anil K. Narendran, J.]
while sitting single, the petitioner, who was engaged as Plant
Attender on contract basis in the Kannur Diary of the Malabar
Regional Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd., which is a Co-
operative Society registered under the Kerala Co-operative
Societies Act, 1969, filed the writ petition seeking a writ of
2025:KER:68685
W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716,
1736 and 1842 of 2024
mandamus commanding the respondent to regularise him in the
post of Plant Attender; and other consequential reliefs, including
a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent not to replace
him with other temporary employees. According to the petitioner,
though he is working on a contract basis, he is being paid all the
benefits of a regular employee, such as EPF, ESI, etc. The
extension of the engagement of the petitioner on several
occasions itself proves that he is efficient and capable of doing the
work and as such, he is entitled for regularisation. The petitioner
made several requests for regularisation, which were not
considered by the respondent for one reason or another. Now the
respondent is trying to terminate the petitioner from the post of
Plant Attender, in order to accommodate another temporary
employee, which is illegal and arbitrary, since a temporary
employee can only be replaced by a permanent employee. Since
no steps have been taken by the respondent to appoint a
permanent employee, the petitioner is entitled to continue as Plant
Attender till a permanent employee is appointed to that post. On
the other hand, the respondent contended that they are following
two separate procedures for engagement of Plant Attenders on
2025:KER:68685
W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716,
1736 and 1842 of 2024
fixed period contract basis and for appointment on permanent
basis. The District Employment Exchange of the concerned district
maintains separate lists of candidates with separate seniority for
being considered for contract engagement as well as for
permanent appointment. On receipt of the list for contract
employment from the District Employment Exchange, an interview
is conducted, and the final select list is prepared from which
candidates are engaged as Plant Attenders on a fixed period
contract. For appointment on a permanent basis, on receipt of the
name of the candidates from a separate list maintained by the
District Employment Exchange for permanent appointment, those
candidates are subjected to written test, physical test and
interview. On the basis of the rank in that rank list, the selected
candidates are given permanent appointment as Plant Attender
Grade III in the scale of pay of Rs. 8500-19940. If Plant Attenders
engaged on fixed period contract through the Employment
Exchange have sufficient seniority in the list prepared by the
Employment Exchange for permanent appointment, they can take
part in the selection process for permanent appointment. The
respondent would also contend that, the maximum duration of
2025:KER:68685
W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716,
1736 and 1842 of 2024
engagements on fixed period contracts for a candidate (total of all
terms put together) is fixed as four years or till permanent
appointment is made, whichever is earlier, as a matter of policy.
30.1. In Santhosh K.V. [2018 SCC OnLine Ker 1234], the
Court noticed that the engagement of the petitioner as Plant
Attender in the Kannur Diary of the respondent Society was on
fixed period contracts, on daily rated - casual basis, which is
evident from Exts.P1, P3, R1(b), R1(c), R1(d) and R1(e)
proceedings of the Dairy Manager. The fact that the petitioner had
completed four years of engagement as Plant Attender on a
contract basis (total of all terms put together) as on 31.1.2018 is
not in dispute. The petitioner has also not disputed the fact that
the respondent is following two separate procedures for
engagement of Plant Attenders on fixed period contract basis and
for appointment on permanent basis. The fixed period contract
appointments of the petitioner as Plant Attender on daily rated
basis was based on the select list prepared by the respondent after
conducting an interview. On the other hand, for permanent
appointment, the candidates are subjected to written test,
physical test and interview and the selected candidates, based on
2025:KER:68685
W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716,
1736 and 1842 of 2024
their rank in that rank list, are given permanent appointment as
Plant Attender Grade III in the scale of pay of Rs.8500-19940.
30.2. In Santhosh K.V. [2018 SCC OnLine Ker 1234], the
Court noticed that in Accounts Officer (A&I) APSRTC v. K.V.
Ramana [(2007) 2 SCC 324] the Apex Court reiterated that, as
held by the Constitution Bench in Uma Devi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC
1] absorption, regularisation or permanent continuance of
temporary, contractual, casual, daily wage or ad hoc employees
dehors the rules and constitutional scheme of public employment
cannot be granted by the courts. Even if the contract labourers or
casual workers or ad hoc employees have worked for a long period
they cannot be regularised dehors the rules for selection, as has
been held in Uma Devi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1]. In State of
Rajasthan v. Daya Lal [(2011) 2 SCC 429] the Apex Court
reiterated that, the High Courts, in exercising power under Article
226 of the Constitution will not issue directions for regularisation,
absorption or permanent continuance, unless the employees
claiming regularisation had been appointed in pursuance of a
regular recruitment in accordance with relevant rules in an open
competitive process, against sanctioned vacant posts. In Yogesh
2025:KER:68685
W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716,
1736 and 1842 of 2024
Mahajan v. All India Institute of Medical Sciences [(2018)
3 SCC 218], the Apex Court reiterated that an employee
appointed on contract basis has no right to have his or her contract
renewed from time to time. On the fats of the case at hand, the
Court noticed that the petitioner could not point out any rule or
regulation framed by the respondent on the basis of which he
claims regularisation in the post of Plant Attender or continuance
in that post till a permanent appointment is made to that post. It
is well settled that unless there exists some rule or regulation
having statutory force, no writ or direction can be issued by this
Court for regularisation or continuance of a casual, ad hoc,
contract or daily rated employee.
30.3. In Santhosh K.V. [2018 SCC OnLine Ker 1234], the
Court held that once the appointment was purely contractual, then
by efflux of time as envisaged in the contract itself, the same came
to an end and the persons holding such a post can have no legal
right to continue or renew the contract of service as a matter of
right. The petitioner had voluntarily accepted the engagement as
Plant Attender, on a daily rated basis, pursuant to Exts.P1, P3,
R1(b), R1(c), R1(d) and R1(e) proceedings, subject to the
2025:KER:68685
W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716,
1736 and 1842 of 2024
conditions clearly stipulated therein. Having accepted such
engagements with eyes wide open, the petitioner cannot now turn
around and claim higher rights, ignoring the conditions subject to
which such engagements have been accepted.
30.4. In Santhosh K.V. [2018 SCC OnLine Ker 1234],
relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Hargurpratap
Singh v. State of Punjab [(2007) 13 SCC 292] the learned
counsel for the petitioner contended that an ad hoc employee
cannot be replaced by another ad hoc employee and as such he is
entitled to continue as Plant Attender on daily rated basis even
after 31.1.2018, i.e., even after the expiry of the period of
appointment in Ext.P3. The Court noticed that in Hargurpratap
Singh [(2007) 13 SCC 292] the Apex Court was dealing with
the claim made by the appellants therein, who were ad hoc
Lecturers in the colleges in the State of Punjab (as discernible from
the order dated 25.8.2005 in I.A. No. 3 of 2004 in Civil Appeal No.
8745 of 2003), for regularisation, minimum pay sale and to
continue in their posts until regular incumbents are appointed.
There being a threat of termination of services, the appellants filed
writ petitions before the High Court. All the reliefs were rejected
2025:KER:68685
W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716,
1736 and 1842 of 2024
by the High Court, and so far as the relief to continue in their
respective posts until regular incumbents are appointed is
concerned, the High Court has stated that the Government will
have to follow its policy decision dated 23.7.2001. The Apex Court
held that, the course adopted by the High Court is to displace one
ad hoc arrangement by another ad hoc arrangement which is not
at all appropriate for the appellants who have gained experience
which will be more beneficial and useful to the colleges concerned,
rather than to appoint persons afresh on ad hoc basis. The ratio
in Hargurpratap Singh [(2007) 13 SCC 292] has no
application to the facts obtaining in the instant case, as the
petitioner is not holding a teaching post. Further, the appointment
of the petitioner is purely contractual in nature. Once the
appointment of the petitioner was purely contractual, for a fixed
period, then by efflux of time as envisaged in that contract itself,
the same came to an end on 31.1.2018, and the petitioner holding
such a post can have no legal right to continue or renew the
contract of service as a matter of right. In such circumstances, the
petitioner is not entitled to a writ of mandamus commanding the
respondent to regularise him in the post of Plant Attender or to
2025:KER:68685
W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716,
1736 and 1842 of 2024
permit him to continue in that post till a regular hand joins duty.
31. In Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v.
Paramjeet Singh [(2019) 6 SCC 250], a decision relied on by
the learned Standing Counsel for Cochin University of Science and
Technology, a Two-Judge Bench of the Apex Court was dealing with
a case in which the respondent was appointed as a conductor on
a contractual basis on 21.01.2006 by the appellant. The
contractual appointment was for a period of one year or until the
shortage of drivers was met, whichever was earlier. The services
of the respondent were dispensed with on 21.03.2007.
Challenging the order of termination, the respondent filed a writ
petition, which was allowed by a learned Single Judge of the
Rajasthan High Court on 06.04.2016. The sole ground on which
the writ petition was allowed was that there was a breach of the
principle of natural justice. The writ appeal was dismissed on
19.09.2016 by the Division Bench of the High Court. Before the
Apex Court, the appellant contended that the High Court was in
error, having regard to the fact that the nature of the appointment
was purely contractual for a period of one year or until the
shortage of drivers was met, whichever was earlier. Moreover, the
2025:KER:68685
W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716,
1736 and 1842 of 2024
contract stipulates that the services of the respondent could be
dispensed with without any notice. The Apex Court found that the
terms of the appointment indicate that the respondent was on a
purely contractual appointment, and that the services could be
dispensed with without notice at any stage. The learned Single
Judge of the High Court relied upon a decision of the Apex Court
in Hari Ram Maurya v. Union of India [(2006) 9 SCC 167],
which is, however, distinguishable since it was found in that case
that the removal was on the ground that the employee, though he
was engaged on a temporary basis, was guilty of a charge of
bribery. Having regard to the terms of the contractual
engagement, the Apex Court found that the action of the appellant
cannot be faulted. Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the appeal
and set aside the impugned judgment dated 19.09.2016 of the
High Court and accordingly, dismissed the writ petition filed by the
respondent.
32. On the question as to whether the appellants-
petitioners can claim to continue their service even after the expiry
of the period specified in the notification and the contracts they
have separately entered into with the University, in the impugned
2025:KER:68685
W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716,
1736 and 1842 of 2024
judgment dated 15.10.2024 the learned Single Judge held that
the petitioners do not have the right to continue in the posts after
the completion of the terms specified in the respective contracts
entered with the University unless the said term is extended by
the University. The learned Single Judge held further that all the
petitioners will have the right to participate in the selection
process notified as per the notification dated 01.10.2023 or any
other notifications, irrespective of the length of service they have
already completed under contract employment with the University.
The University shall provide preference by way of additional grace
marks for the services already rendered by the respective
petitioners while conducting the selection process for subsequent
appointments, if not already provided, by adopting a reasonable
criteria determined by the University.
33. As already noticed hereinbefore, the contention of the
learned counsel for the appellants-petitioners in the writ appeals
is that the learned Single Judge committed a grave error in
declining the relief that the appellants-petitioners shall not be
replaced with another set of temporary hands. The contentions
raised by the petitioners, relying on the decisions of the Apex
2025:KER:68685
W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716,
1736 and 1842 of 2024
Court in Piara Singh [(1992) 4 SCC 118], Hargurpratap
Singh (2007) 13 SCC 292], Manish Gupta [(2022) 15 SCC
540], etc., were not properly understood and considered by the
learned Single Judge. The learned counsel has also relied on
various decisions of the High Court in which the observation
contained in paragraph 49 of the decision of the Apex Court in
Piara Singh [(1992) 4 SCC 118] was followed and also the
decision of the Apex Court in Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1],
Jaggo [2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826] and Travancore
Devaswom Board [2025 KHC OnLine 1782]. In this context,
we notice that it is not the case of the appellants-petitioners that
the appellants are entitled for regularisation of their service as
Assistant Professors in various departments in the Engineering
Colleges under the Cochin University of Science and Technology in
the light of the decision of the Apex Court in Umadevi (3)
[(2006) 4 SCC 1], Jaggo [2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826], etc.
The case of the appellants-petitioners is that in view of the law
laid down by the Apex Court in paragraph 46 of the decision of the
Apex Court in Piara Singh [(1992) 4 SCC 118] that an ad hoc
or temporary employee should not be replaced by another ad hoc
2025:KER:68685
W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716,
1736 and 1842 of 2024
or temporary employee and that he must be replaced only by a
regularly selected employee, the appellants have a right to
continue in the respective posts after completion of the terms
specified in the respective contracts entered with the University.
34. A reading of the decision of the Apex Court in Piara
Singh [(1992) 4 SCC 118] would show that in the said decision
the Apex Court was considering the sustainability of certain
directions issued by the High Court of Panjab and Haryana in the
light of various orders passed by the State Haryana and State of
Panjab for the absorption of its ad hoc or temporary employees
and daily-wagers or casual labourers. In the said decision the Apex
Court followed the principles laid down by the Apex Court in
Dharwad District PWD Literate Daily Wage Employees
Association [(1990) 2 SCC 396] and Jacob M.
Puthuparambil [(1991) 1 SCC 28]. The Apex Court found that
the direction by the High Court that all those ad hoc/temporary
employees who have continued for more than a year should be
regularised has been given without reference to the existence of
a vacancy. Though persons belonging to those categories,
continuing over a number of years, have a right to claim
2025:KER:68685
W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716,
1736 and 1842 of 2024
regularisation and the authorities are under an obligation to
consider their case for regularisation in a fair manner, keeping in
view the principles enunciated in the decisions on the point, the
blanket direction given by the High Court cannot be sustained. In
paragraphs 45 to 50 of the decision in Piara Singh [(1992) 4
SCC 118] the Apex Court made certain observations, which each
Government or authority should bear in mind while devising its
own criteria or principles for regularisation of ad hoc or temporary
employees in Government service. The appellants-petitioners are
placing reliance on the observation contained in paragraph 46 of
the said decision, which reads thus;
"46. Secondly, an ad hoc or temporary employee should not
be replaced by another ad hoc or temporary employee; he
must be replaced only by a regularly selected employee.
This is necessary to avoid arbitrary action on the part of the
appointing authority."
A reading of the above observation made by the Apex Court in
paragraph 46 of the decision in Piara Singh [(1992) 4 SCC 118]
would make it explicitly clear that the Apex Court made such an
observation since it is necessary to avoid arbitrary action on the
part of the appointing authority.
2025:KER:68685
W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716,
1736 and 1842 of 2024
35. In the instant case the appellants-petitioners are not
temporary employees, daily wagers or casual labourers. The
appellants-petitioners are working as Assistant Professors, on
contract basis, in various departments in the Engineering Colleges
under the Cochin University of Science and Technology. The
appointment of teachers in Universities and Institutions affiliated
to it are governed by the provisions under the Regulations made
by the University Grants Commission in exercise of its powers
under Section 26 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956.
The said Regulations deals with direct recruitment to the post of
Assistant Professors, Associate Professors in the Universities and
Colleges and also appointments on contract basis.
36. In exercise of the powers conferred under clause (e)
and (g) of sub-section (1) of Section 26 of the University Grants
Commission Act, 1956, and in supersession of the University
Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications Required for the
Appointment and Career Advancement of Teachers in Universities
and Institutions affiliated to it) Regulations, 2000, together with
all amendments made therein from time to time, the University
Grants Commission made the University Grants Commission
2025:KER:68685
W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716,
1736 and 1842 of 2024
(Minimum qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other
Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the
Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations, 2010
(Regulation No.F.3-1/2009 dated 30th June, 2010).
36.1. As per Clause 1.2 of the UGC Regulations, 2010, the
regulations shall apply to every University established or
incorporated by or under a Central Act, Provincial Act or a State
Act, every Institution, including a constituent or an affiliated
college recognised by the Commission, in consultation with the
University concerned under clause (f) of Section 2 of the
University Grants Commission Act, 1956 and every Institution
deemed to be a University under Section 3 of the said Act. The
Cochin University of Science and Technology (CUSAT), which was
initially constituted as the University of Cochin, through a State
Act, i.e., the Cochin University Act, 1971, which was reorganised
vide the Cochin University of Science and Technology Act, 1986,
redefining its objectives as promoting Graduate and Post‐Graduate
studies and Advanced Research in Applied Sciences, Technology,
Industry, Commerce, Management and Social Sciences. As per
Clause 3 of the UGC Regulations, 2010, the consequences of
2025:KER:68685
W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716,
1736 and 1842 of 2024
failure of the Universities to comply with the recommendations of
the Commission are as provided under Section 14 of the University
Grants Commission Act, 1956
36.2. Clause 3.0.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2010 deals with
recruitment and Qualifications. As per Clause 3.1.0, the direct
recruitment to the posts of Assistant Professors, Associate
Professors and Professors in the Universities and Colleges shall be
on the basis of merit through all India advertisement and
selections by the duly constituted Selection Committees as per the
provisions made under the Regulations to be incorporated under
the Statutes/Ordinances of the concerned University. The
composition of such committees should be as prescribed by the
Commission in the Regulations.
36.3. Clause 13.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2010 deals with
appointments on contract basis. As per Clause 13.1, the teachers
should be appointed on contract basis only when it is absolutely
necessary and when the student-teacher ratio does not satisfy the
laid-down norms. In any case, the number of such appointments
should not exceed 10% of the total number of faculty positions in
a College/University. The qualifications and selection procedure for
2025:KER:68685
W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716,
1736 and 1842 of 2024
appointing them should be the same as those applicable to a
regularly appointed teacher. The fixed emoluments paid to such
contract teachers should not be less than the monthly gross salary
of a regularly appointed Assistant Professor. Such appointments
should not be made initially for more than one academic session,
and the performance of any such entrant teacher should be
reviewed for academic performance before reappointing him/her
on contract basis for another session.
37. In exercise of the powers conferred under clause (e)
and (g) of sub-section (1) of Section 26 read with Section 14 of
the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 and in supersession
of the University Grants Commission (Minimum qualifications for
Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities
and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in
Higher Education) Regulations, 2010 together with all
amendments made therein from time to time, the University
Grants Commission made the University Grants Commission
(Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other
Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and other Measures
for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education)
2025:KER:68685
W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716,
1736 and 1842 of 2024
Regulations, 2018.
37.1. As per Clause 1.1 of the UGC Regulations, 2018, the
regulations shall apply to every University established or
incorporated by or under a Central Act, Provincial Act or a State
Act, every institution including a constituent or an affiliated college
recognised by the Commission, in consultation with the University
concerned under clause (f) of Section 2 of the University Grants
Commission Act, 1956 and every institution deemed to be a
University under Section 3 of the said Act. As per Clause 3 of the
UGC Regulations, 2018, if any University contravenes the
provisions of these Regulations, the Commission, after taking into
consideration the cause, if any, shown by the University for such
failure or contravention, may withhold from the University the
grants proposed to be made out of the Fund of the Commission.
37.2. Clause 3.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2018 deals with
recruitment and Qualifications. As per Clause 3.1, direct
recruitment to the posts of Assistant Professor, Associate Professor
and Professor in the Universities and Colleges, and Senior
Professor in the Universities, shall be on the basis of merit through
an all-India advertisement, followed by selection by a duly
2025:KER:68685
W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716,
1736 and 1842 of 2024
constituted Selection Committee as per the provisions made under
the Regulations. Clause 3.1 mandates that these provisions shall
be incorporated in the Statutes/Ordinances of the University
concerned. The composition of such a committee shall be as
specified in the Regulations.
37.3. Clause 13.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2018 deals with
appointments on contract basis. As per Clause 13.0, the teachers
should be appointed on contract basis only when it is absolutely
necessary and when the student-teacher ratio does not satisfy the
laid-down norms. In any case, the number of such appointments
should not exceed 10% of the total number of faculty positions in
a College/University. The qualifications and selection procedure for
appointing them should be the same as those applicable to a
regularly appointed teacher. The fixed emoluments paid to such
contract teachers should not be less than the monthly gross salary
of a regularly appointed Assistant Professor. Such appointments
should not be made initially for more than one academic session,
and the performance of any such entrant teacher should be
reviewed for academic performance before reappointing him/her
on contract basis for another session. Such appointments on
2025:KER:68685
W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716,
1736 and 1842 of 2024
contract basis may also be resorted to when absolutely necessary
to fill vacancies arising due to maternity leave, child-care leave,
etc.
38. As per the mandate of the statutory provisions
contained in the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 and also
that contained in the UGC Regulations, 2010, followed by the UGC
Regulations, 2018, any direct recruitment to the post of Assistant
Professors or appointments on contract basis in various
departments in the Engineering Colleges under the Cochin
University of Science and Technology, which was initially
constituted as the University of Cochin, through a State Act, i.e.,
the Cochin University Act, 1971, which was reorganised vide the
Cochin University of Science and Technology Act, 1986, have to
be made as per the mandate of the provisions contained in the
UGC Regulations, 2010, which was followed by the UGC
Regulations, 2018. For the posts of Assistant Professor in the
Universities and Colleges, the method prescribed in Clause 3.1.0
of the UGC Regulations, 2010 and Clause 3.0 of the UGC
Regulations, 2018 is direct recruitment on the basis of merit
through an all-India advertisement, followed by selection by a duly
2025:KER:68685
W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716,
1736 and 1842 of 2024
constituted Selection Committee as per the provisions under the
said Regulations. Clause 13.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2010 and
Clause 13.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2018 make specific provisions
for appointments on contract basis. As already noticed
hereinbefore, as per Clause 13.1 of the UGC Regulations, 2010
and 13.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2018, the teachers should be
appointed on contract basis only when it is absolutely necessary
and when the student-teacher ratio does not satisfy the laid-down
norms. In any case, the number of such appointments should not
exceed 10% of the total number of faculty positions in a
College/University. The qualifications and selection procedure for
appointing them should be the same as those applicable to a
regularly appointed teacher. The fixed emoluments paid to such
contract teachers should not be less than the monthly gross salary
of a regularly appointed Assistant Professor. Such appointments
should not be made initially for more than one academic session,
and the performance of any such entrant teacher should be
reviewed for academic performance before reappointing him/her
on contract basis for another session.
39. In view of the provisions contained in the UGC
2025:KER:68685
W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716,
1736 and 1842 of 2024
Regulations, 2010, which was followed by the UGC Regulations,
2018, the Cochin University of Science and Technology can make
appointments on contract basis to the posts of Assistant
Professors in various Departments in the Engineering Colleges
under the said University strictly in terms of the aforesaid
provisions contained in the Regulations made by the University
Grants Commission in exercise of the powers conferred under
Section 26 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956. Any
failure on the part of the Cochin University of Science and
Technology to comply with the provisions contained in the UGC
Regulations, 2010, which was followed by the UGC Regulations,
2018 will attract the consequences provided in Clause 3 of the said
Regulations.
40. As per the mandate of Clase 13.1 of the UGC
Regulations, 2010 and Clause 13.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2018,
the contract appointments of teachers made, when the student-
teacher ratio does not satisfy the laid down norms, should not be
made initially for more than one academic session, and the
performance of any such entrant teacher should be reviewed for
academic performance before reappointing him/her on contract
2025:KER:68685
W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716,
1736 and 1842 of 2024
basis for another session. In view of the specific provision
contained in Clause 13.1 of the UGC Regulations, 2010 and Clause
13.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2018 the contract appointment of an
Assistant Professor in a department in an Engineering College
under the Cochin University of Science and Technology should not
be for more than one academic session and the reappointment on
contract basis, after reviewing the academic performance, shall be
for another academic session.
41. When the UGC Regulations issued in exercise of the
powers under Section 26 of the University Grants Commission Act,
1956 prescribe the period of contract appointment as well as the
period of reappointment on contract basis as Assistant Professor
in Universities and affiliated Colleges, placing reliance on the
observation made by the Apex Court in paragraph 46 of the
decision in Piara Singh [(1992) 4 SCC 118] that an ad hoc or
temporary employee should not be replaced by another ad hoc or
temporary employee and that he must be replaced only by a
regularly selected employee, the appellants-petitioners cannot
contend that even after the expiry of their term of appointment/
reappointment as Assistant Professors on contract basis, they
2025:KER:68685
W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716,
1736 and 1842 of 2024
should be retained in their respective posts by granting extension
of their appointments until regular appointments are made by the
University based on a selection process.
42. As already noticed hereinbefore, a reading of the
observation made in paragraph 46 of the decision in Piara Singh
[(1992) 4 SCC 118] would make it explicitly clear that the Apex
Court made such an observation since it is necessary to avoid
arbitrary action on the part of the appointing authority. When the
appointment as well as reappointment of an Assistant Professor
on contract basis has to be made after conducting a process of
selection as per the requirements of the provisions contained in
Clause 3.0.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2010, which was followed by
Clause 3.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2018, the observation made
by the Apex Court in paragraph 46 of the decision in Piara Singh
[(1992) 4 SCC 118] has no application, since the UGC
Regulations itself provides a process of selection even for a
contract appointment as well as reappointment to avoid any
arbitrary action on the part of the University or the affiliated
College. Therefore, we hold that the observation made by the Apex
Court in paragraph 46 of the decision in Piara Singh [(1992) 4
2025:KER:68685
W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716,
1736 and 1842 of 2024
SCC 118] in no way supports the claim of the appellants-
petitioners that they are entitled to extension of their contract
appointments as Assistant Professors until regular appointments
are made by the Cochin University of Science and Technology
based on a selection process. In that view of the matter this Court
need not delve into the contentions raised by the learned counsel
for the appellants-petitioners in W.A.Nos.1664 of 2024, 1694 of
2024 and 1842 of 2024 placing reliance on various decisions of
the High Court in which the observation contained in paragraph 49
of the decision of the Apex Court in Piara Singh [(1992) 4 SCC
118] was followed. We also notice the specific stipulation in
Clause 13.1 of the UGC Regulations, 2010 and Clause 13.0 of the
UGC Regulations, 2018, which stipulates that the contract
appointments of teachers made, when the student-teacher ratio
does not satisfy the laid down norms, should not exceed 10% of
total number of faculty positions in a College/University.
43. Relying on the decision of a Three-Judge Bench of the
Apex Court in Anita [(2016) 8 SCC 293] and the decision of a
Two-Judge Bench in Yogesh Mahajan [(2018) 3 SCC 218] as
well as other decisions of the High Court, the learned Standing
2025:KER:68685
W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716,
1736 and 1842 of 2024
Counsel for Cochin University of Science and Technology raised a
contention that no contract employee has a right to have his
contract renewed from time to time. When the UGC Regulations
issued in exercise of the powers under Section 26 of the University
Grants Commission Act, 1956 prescribe the period of contract
appointment as well as the period of reappointment on contract
basis as Assistant Professor in Universities and affiliated Colleges,
this Court need not delve into the legal contentions raised on the
above aspect in this judgment, as it is unnecessary.
44. 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
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.
2025:KER:68685
W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716,
1736 and 1842 of 2024
45. 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 the
orders or directions which are contrary to what has been injected
by law.
46. In view of the law laid down in the decisions referred
to supra, the appellants-petitioners cannot seek a writ of
mandamus commanding the Cochin University of Science and
Technology to permit them to continue as Assistant Professors on
contract basis in the respective departments in the Engineering
Colleges under the University, after completion of the term
specified in the respective contracts entered with the University,
since no mandamus can be issued directing the University to do
something contrary to the statutory requirements of the UGC
Regulations, 2010, which was followed by the UGC Regulations,
2018, which are made by the University Grants Commission in
exercise of the powers conferred under Section 26 of the
University Grants Commission Act, 1956. Moreover, Clause 3 of
2025:KER:68685
W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716,
1736 and 1842 of 2024
the UGC Regulations, 2010 and the UGC Regulations, 2018
provides for the consequences of failure of the Universities to
comply with the provisions of the said Regulations.
47. In the above circumstances, we find no grounds to
interfere with the impugned judgment dated 15.10.2024 of the
learned Single Judge and the directions contained therein, to the
extent it is under challenge in these writ appeals.
In the result, these writ appeals fail and they are accordingly
dismissed.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
bkn/-
