Kerala High Court
K.C.Ummer vs The University Of Calicut
Author: K. Vinod Chandran
Bench: K.Vinod Chandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
MONDAY,THE 29TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/10TH PHALGUNA, 1937
W.P.(C).No.36507 of 2004 (U)
---------------------------------------------------
PETITIONER(S):-
--------------------------
K.C.UMMER, LIGHT DUTY DRIVER,
UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, UNIVERSITY CAMPUS, THENHIPALAM,
MALAPPURAM.
BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN.
RESPONDENT(S):-
----------------------------
1. THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY CAMPUS,
THENHIPALAM, MALAPPURAM.
2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR,
UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, UNIVERSITY CAMPUS, THENHIPALAM,
MALAPPURAM.
ADDIDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 3 TO 5 IMPLEADED
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ADDL.3. BABU.K.T., KARINTHAYIL PARAMBU,
"KARUNYAM", P.O.KOLATHRA, KOZHIKODE.
ADDL.4. SHABU.T.T., THALASSERY HOUSE, SREEMOOLANAGARAM,
KALADY,ANGAMALY DISTRICT.
ADDL.5. MOHAMMED SHAFI.K.P.,
PATTATHODIYIL HOUSE, PERUMBALAM P.O.,
PIN - 676 509.
[ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 3 TO 5 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER
ORDER ON I.A.NO.1770 OF 2005 DT.29.02.2016]
R1 & R2 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW.
R3 TO R5 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.IBRAHIM
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
29-02-2016, ALONG WITH W.P.(C).NOS.2903 OF 2005-U &
512 OF 2005-J, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:-
W.P.(C) NO.36507 OF 2004-U
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-
--------------------------------------
EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 2.9.80
ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.
EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DT.4.7.1981
ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.
EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE
UNIVERSITY DT.15.07.2004.
EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RANKED LIST PUBLISHED BY
THE UNIVERSITY.
EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER ISSUED
BY THE UNIVERSITY.
EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDINANCE OF THE UNIVERSITY
WHICH PRESCRIBES THE METHOD OF APPOINTMENT.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:-
---------------------------------------- NIL.
vku/ [ true copy ]
K. Vinod Chandran, J.
------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) Nos.36507 of 2004-U,
512 of 2005-J &
2903 of 2005-U
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 29th day of February, 2016
JUDGMENT
The petitioners in the above three writ petitions were persons who were working as Light Vehicle Drivers in the respondent-University. The petitioners claim that no direct recruitment ought to have been conducted to the post of Heavy Vehicle Driver, since there were persons in the lower category entitled for promotion.
2. The notification itself was on 15.07.2004 and the petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos.36507 of 2004 and 2903 of 2005 did not apply under the same. When the party respondents were appointed, the petitioners challenged such appointments.
WP(C)No36507/2004 & - 2 - connected cases
3. Suffice it to notice the provision for appointment as Heavy Vehicle Driver, as is indicated in Exhibit P1 in W.P.(C) 2903 of 2005:
Sl. Category Scale Minimum Age limit Appointin Method of No. / Post of Pay Qualificati g Recruitment on Authority H.V.Driver 4000- VII Std. Not more Vice By Promotion 6090 1. Heavy than 35 Chancellor from the vehicle years (for cadre of driving Director L.V.Drivers on license recruitment the basis of with seniority and Badge. qualifications,
2. 5 years OR experience By recruitment on the basis of practical test inviting application by advertisement 1 in the press.
It is stated by the learned counsel appearing for the party respondents that there is no stipulation that direct recruitment could be made only in the absence of persons in the feeder category. The petitioners also could have applied under the notification and they having not so applied, cannot challenge the appointment of the party respondents. This Court is convinced that the challenge made is without merit.
WP(C)No36507/2004 & - 3 - connected cases
4. With respect to the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.512 of 2005, the petitioner had applied; but was not selected. The petitioner contends that he was not informed of the interview. However, the learned Standing Counsel for the University has filed a statement on behalf of the University, which indicates that all the applicants were informed over telephone as to the interview. It is specifically averred in the statement as follows:
"He has given the telephone number 048292227217 and message had been given on 27.12.2004 in that number".
In the above circumstances, nothing survives in the writ petitions and the same are dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
K.Vinod Chandran Judge.
vku/-
[true copy]