Kerala High Court
K.R.Narayanan National Institute Of ... vs Vinod Veerakumar on 3 January, 2022
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
MONDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 13TH POUSHA, 1943
WA NO. 1173 OF 2021
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT dated 08.03.2021 IN WP(C).NO.18411/2020
AND REVIEW PETITION NO.371 OF 2021 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENT 1 & 2:
1 K.R.NARAYANAN NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF VISUAL SCIENCE
AND ARTS,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, KANJIRAMATTOM P.O.,
KOTTAYAM-686585.
2 THE DIRECTOR,
K.R.NARAYANAN NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF VISUAL SCIENCE
AND ARTS,KANJJIRAMATTOM P.O., KOTTAYAM-686585.
BY ADVS.
SRI.ANAND, SR
SRI.ARJUN VARMA
SMT.LATHA ANAND
SRI.K.R.PRAMOTH KUMAR
SRI.S.VISHNU (ARIKKATTIL)
SRI.RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI B
SRI.SIDHARTH P.S.
SRI.ROHITH MOHAN
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS 1 TO 3 AND RESPONDENT 4:
1 VINOD VEERAKUMAR,
AGED 45 YEARS
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF CINEMATOGRAPHY,
K.R. NARAYANAN NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF VISUAL SCIENCE
AND ARTS, KANJIRAMATTOM P.O., KOTTAYAM-686585.
2 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT,
THIRVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
:2:
W.A.No.1173 of 2021
BY ADVS.
SRI.M.R.HARIRAJ
SRI.THANUJA ROSHAN
SRI.VISWAJITH C.K
SRI.GANGA A.SANKAR
SRI.R.SUJA
SRI.CHACKOCHEN VITHAYATHIL
SRI.GISHA G. RAJ
SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
:3:
W.A.No.1173 of 2021
JUDGMENT
A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.
The 1st and 2nd respondents in WP(C).No.18411 of 2020 are the appellants before us aggrieved by the judgment dated 08.03.2021 of the learned Single Judge allowing the Writ Petition, and the order dated 08.07.2021 in Review Petition No.371 of 2021, whereby the Review Petition preferred against the judgment was dismissed.
2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the Writ appeal are as follows:
The Writ Petitioner Sri.Vinod Veerakumar was appointed as Associate Professor in Cinematography in the K.R.Narayanan National Institute of Visual Science & Arts by Ext.P1 order dated 17.07.2017. The said order of appointment clearly indicated that the appointment was merely on contractual basis and to enure for a period of three years from the date of the order. It is not in dispute that the said appointment on contractual basis came to an end by efflux of time on 17.06.2020. It would appear that prior to the expiry of the contract period, a performance appraisal was resorted to by the appellants herein to see :4: W.A.No.1173 of 2021 whether the term of any of the contract appointees could be extended. In the Minutes of the Meeting held by the Performance Appraisal Committee on 23.06.2020, the case of the Writ petitioner is seen considered and it was apparently decided to recommend an extension of the term of the petitioner by three months subject to the findings in an enquiry that was also recommended for looking into the complaints received against the Writ Petitioner. It was, thereafter, that Ext.P9 order dated 29.07.2020 was issued noting that the contract period of the writ petitioner had expired on 17.07.2020 and that the issue of extension of his contract period would be considered based on the recommendations of the Performance Appraisal Committee. The writ petitioner impugned Ext.P9 in the Writ Petition before the learned Single Judge, inter alia, on the contention that there was no justification for denying him an extension more so when the Performance Appraisal Committee had recommended the same albeit for a period of three months, and subject to the outcome of the enquiry aforementioned. A learned Single Judge, while admitting the Writ Petition, passed an interim order staying all further action pursuant to the order impugned in the Writ Petition. Thereafter, the Writ Petition was allowed, on the finding that a contract employee could not be replaced by another contract employee till such time as the post was regularly filled in accordance with law. The learned Judge, however, :5: W.A.No.1173 of 2021 permitted the appellants herein to complete the enquiry against the writ petitioner in accordance with law and to take consequential action thereafter, but made it clear that in the interregnum, the petitioner would be permitted to continue in service in view of the interim order earlier granted by the court. Although a Review Petition was preferred against the said judgment by the appellants herein, the same came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge, who did not find any error apparent on record necessitating a review of the judgment.
3. Before us, it is the contention of the learned Senior counsel Sri.Anand duly assisted by the learned counsel Sri.Arjun Varma that the learned Judge erred in allowing the Writ Petition, more so when it was the admitted case that the appointment of the writ petitioner as Associate Professor in Cinematography was purely contractual in nature, and only for a period of three years commencing from 17.06.2017. It is pointed out that while it may be a fact that the Performance Appraisal Committee had recommended the continuation of service of the writ petitioner for a period of three months after the expiry of the contract period of three years, the appellants were not inclined to accept the said recommendation and extend the term of the writ petitioner. It is contended that in the absence of any right enuring in the writ petitioner to seek a continuance in service, it was not open :6: W.A.No.1173 of 2021 to the learned Single Judge to extend the tenure of the petitioner, contrary to the express provisions of the appointment order.
4. Per contra, it is the submission of Sri.M.R.Hariraj, the learned counsel for the 1 st respondent/writ petitioner that the petitioner's claim for continuance is based not merely on his earlier appointment on contract basis but on the legitimate expectation that he had for continuance based on the recommendations made by the Performance Appraisal Committee. This is more so when others similarly placed as him, and who were also initially appointed for a period of three years on contract basis, were granted extensions based on recommendations of the Performance Appraisal Committee. He further points out that the mala fides and hostile attitude of the appellants is also borne out by their conduct in refusing to issue the writ petitioner with an experience certificate for the period he had admittedly worked pursuant to his appointment with effect from 17.06.2017.
5. We have considered the rival submissions and the pleadings on record as also the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge in the Writ Petition and the Review Petition referred above. On an overall consideration, we find that it is not in dispute that the right that is conferred on an appointee under a contractual appointment comes to :7: W.A.No.1173 of 2021 an end with the expiry of the period mentioned in the contract of appointment. In the instant case, that period expired on 17.06.2020. Thereafter a Committee had appraised the performance of the writ petitioner during the contract period and recommended to continue the service of the writ petitioner for a period of three months subject to the completion of an enquiry that was proposed against him in relation to certain complaints that were allegedly received against him. The said enquiry proceedings, however, never got under way since on account of the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge in the Writ Petition, the appellants also put on hold further proceedings towards completion of the enquiry. The learned Senior counsel for the appellants points out that the enquiry was only for the purposes of ascertaining the suitability of the writ petition for a possible grant of extension and in the instant case, it was decided not to extend the term of the writ petitioner. Under these circumstances, and more so when we find that after the expiry of the contract period the writ petitioner did not really have any existing legal right to continue in service under the appellants for a period beyond what was contemplated in his appointment order, we cannot recognise any right in the writ petitioner to continue in service under the appellants beyond the said contract period merely on the ground that a Performance Appraisal Committee had recommended his continuance for a further period of three months. :8: W.A.No.1173 of 2021 The latter fact alone cannot clothe the petitioner with any legitimate expectation for such expectation must be in relation to a legal right and, in the instant case, we do not find any such right enuring to the petitioner from his earlier appointment. In otherwords, so long as the petitioner cannot trace his claim to any right that enures in him for continuation in service, the action of the appellants in refusing an extension of the contract period cannot be said to be illegal. We, therefore, allow this Writ Appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment and order respectively of the learned Single Judge, in the Writ Petition and Review Petition referred above, and dismiss the Writ Petition.
6. Before parting with this appeal, and taking note of the apprehension raised by Sri.M.R.Hariraj, the learned counsel for the 1 st respondent, we make it clear that the termination of service of the 1 st respondent/writ petitioner shall be treated as consequent to the expiry of the contract period envisaged in Ext.P1 letter of appointment and therefore non-stigmatic. The alleged complaint received against the writ petitioner shall not be reflected in any of the communications issued to him or in any of the service records maintained in relation to the writ petitioner by the appellants. The appellants shall also forthwith issue to the 1st respondent/writ petitioner the Experience Certificate :9: W.A.No.1173 of 2021 requested by him to cover the period from 17.06.2017 to 17.06.2020 when he rendered service in the appellant institution.
The Writ Petition is allowed as above.
Sd/-
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE Sd/-
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
JUDGE
mns
:10:
W.A.No.1173 of 2021
APPENDIX OF WA 1173/2021
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER
DATED 28/04/2017.
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN THE
WRIT PETITION NO.18411/2020 DATED
09/09/2020.
Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE
DIRECTOR DATED 15/09/2020.
RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES:
Annexure R1A A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF
THE NOTIFICATION
NO.27/A1/KRNNIVSA/2021 DATED
10/12/2021
Annexure R1(B) A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED
18/1/2021 ALONG WITH THE DOCUMENTS
ENCLOSED THEREWITH SUBMITTED BY THE
GOVERNMENT PLEADER IN THE WRIT
PETITION
Annexure R1(C) A TRUE COPY OF THE E-MAIL DATED
26.11.2021
Annexure R1(D) TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 2.12.2021
//TRUE COPY//
P.A TO JUDGE