Dr. Neethu M vs State Of Kerala on 21 December, 2023

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Dr. Neethu M vs State Of Kerala on 21 December, 2023

1. The appellant who is a Veterinary doctor, preferred this appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C).27064 of 2022 dated 4.3.2022 dismissing the above writ petition. Pursuant to the notification issued by the 2nd respondent/Kerala Livestock Development Board Ltd, she applied for the post of Assistant Manager (AH) and got selection as such. While joining the service as demanded by the 2nd respondent, she had executed Ext.P2 bond to serve the respondent for a period of five years and agreed to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- in lieu of liquidated damages, in case she leaves the Board before the expiry of the bond period. While she was working under the 2nd respondent, she got appointment as Veterinary Surgeon, Grade-II under Animal Husbandry Department. Ext.P4 representation dated 2.12.2020 to relieve her from the service of the Board was declined by the 2nd respondent. Therefore, she approached this Court by filing the above writ petition seeking a direction to the respondent WA.480 of 2022 3 to issue relieving order to enable her to join as Veterinary Surgeon, Grade-II in the Animal Husbandry Department. As per the order of the learned Single Judge in the writ petition, the appellant furnished bank guarantee for an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- on 08.12.2020 and accordingly relieving order was issued to her and she joined in the new post. Subsequently the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on 4.3.2022 and consequently the 2 nd respondent encashed the bank guarantee for Rs.5,00,000/-. Aggrieved by the above judgment of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition, she preferred this appeal raising various contentions.

2. One of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that in Ext.R2(a) notification issued by the 2 nd respondent, the bond amount was not mentioned. According to the appellant, the bond amount for Rs.5,00,000/- fixed by the 2nd respondent is unreasonable. It was also contended that the appellant was entitled to get the benefit of Ext.P5 OM. Another contention raised was to the effect that the 2 nd respondent could recover only the actual loss sustained. Since the 2 nd respondent has not given any pre-induction training, no damage was sustained by them. More over, according to the appellant, at the time of joining service, she had no bargaining power and the said position was misused by the 2nd respondent.

WA.480 of 2022 4

3. On the other hand, Sri.V.Tekchand, the learned Senior Government Pleader and Smt.Sumathy Dandapani, learned Senior counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 vehemently opposed the claim of the appellant and prayed for dismissing the appeal.

4. Admittedly in the notification for the selection of the Assistant Manager, the amount of bond was not mentioned though it was specified that there will be a bond for a period of five years. However, in Ext.P1 appointment order dated 19.5.2018 issued by the appellant, it was specifically stated that she should execute an agreement in stamp paper worth Rs.100/- to serve the Board for a minimum period of five years on a bonded obligation of Rs.5,00,000/- within a period of one month from joining duty. In Ext.P1 it was also specified that in case she leaves the service of the 2nd respondent, she will be liable to pay the above Rs.5,00,000/- in lieu of liquidated damages. Subsequently on 2.7.2018, the appellant executed Ext.P2 bond in stamp paper worth Rs.100/- undertaking to work under the 2 nd respondent for a minimum period of five years from the date of joining duty on 28.5.2018 and also undertaking to pay the 2 nd respondent a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- together with interest thereon in case she discontinues the service. Since in Exts.P1 and P2 the bond amount and bond period were specifically noted, the appellant cannot WA.480 of 2022 5 now contend that absence of the bond amount in the notification is relevant in the facts of this case.

5. As revealed from Ext.P2, the appellant joined in the service of the 2 nd respondent on 28.5.2018. Thereafter, she had executed Ext.P2 bond only on 2.7.2018, 35 days after joining duty. The appellant who is a post-graduate in Veterinary Science had executed Ext.P2 bond more than one month after joining duty, after having enough time to think and decide and as such, her contention that Ext.P2 was executed at the time of joining duty as she had no other option does not hold good. Further, even at the time of executing the bond, her name was there in the rank list for the post of veterinary surgeon.

6. More over, the employees of the Board have special staff rules and regulations approved by the government. Regulation 28(5) of the Kerala Livestock Development Board (Staff Rules and Regulations) dated 23.11.1994 also provides for execution of bond by all technical officers of the Board. The above Regulation is binding on the appellant on joining duty and while executing Ext.P2 bond. However, the validity of the above Regulation was not challenged by the appellant in the writ petition. Therefore, now the appellant cannot take a contention against the provisions in the Regulation.

7. With regard to the contention that even if the appellant leaves the 2 nd WA.480 of 2022 6 respondent/Board, there will be no scope for any actual damage to the Board, was strongly opposed by respondents 2 and 3 in the counter affidavit as well as in the additional counter affidavit filed. As per those affidavits, the primary objective of the Board is to provide for developmental activities in the field of cattle breeding, the production and supply of frozen semen, procurement and supply of liquid nitrogen, supply of AI inputs, fodder development, training to farmers, officials etc. It was also functioning as an implementing agency of various Central and State government schemes in the state in relation to cattle's development. It has the best advanced technology for frozen semen facility in India. For continuing the supply of frozen semen required for artificial insemination in cattle, the Board has to maintain A grade for it's semen stations awarded by Central Monitoring Unit (CMU), a professional body under Government of India.

8. In the affidavits it is further contended that the 2 nd respondent is maintaining 3 Semen Stations in the State having A grade certification from CMU. Considering the specialized fields wherein the Board had been engaged, continuity of experienced professionals in the field is highly essential. The Board had insisted bonded obligations to severe the dearth of Veterinary Officers in the Board which has affected the technical functions adversely. The Veterinary Officers recruited in the WA.480 of 2022 7 Board as Assistant Managers (AH), have to associate with the procurement, up-keeping etc. of Frozen Semen production, and storage and dispatch in accordance with the minimum standard protocol designed by the CMU. The technical expertise and knowledge gained by the Board in the field of Frozen Semen technology and allied subjects are the result of its decades' long research and development in the field. It is noticed that fresh veterinary graduates appointed in the Board used to make the Institution as a breathing space to them till they gets appointment in the Government Departments. In order to tide over the situation and by considering the above facts, the Board of Directors decided to enhance the amount of liquidated damages to be remitted by the Assistant Managers consequent to their failure to render a minimum period of five years service in the Board. It would enable the candidates, who are actually willing to work in the Board, to join the service of the Board rather than those who consider it as a stop gap arrangement prior to departure to other Departments. The amount fixed by the Board is not based on monetary value of the amount spent on the training to the employees or expenditure incurred in the recruitment process, but the loss of technical expertise which is highly essential to maintain the standards of CMU under the minimum standard protocol of the Government of India.

WA.480 of 2022 8

9. The affidavits further contend that the brain drain caused by the frequent resignations of Assistant Managers would drastically affect the smooth functioning of the Board. Selection for the post of Assistant Managers (AH) is also not through the Public Service Commission (PSC), but through the Centre for Management Development consisting of technical expertise which is highly essential to maintain the grading of CMU. For this recruitment process also huge financial expenditure is incurred. In the case of staff recruited to posts including Technical Staff through PSC, no such bond is insisted. The technical functions undertaken by the Board in Animal Husbandry and Agricultural Wings require frequent supervision and involvement of expert professionals in the respective fields. The Board had also provided elaborate training to the appellant in the field of Semen process and production during the period from 6th to 10th of May, 2019. Thereafter, she was deputed to the training in sustainable utilization of Indigenous Animal Genetic Resources in Animal Husbandry, Dairy and Poultry sectors conducted by ICAR - National Bureau of Animal Genetic Resources, Karnal, Haryana. It was contended in the affidavit that Ext.P5 OM applies only to bond executed in the public enterprises owned and controlled by the Central Government and does not apply to the appellant.

WA.480 of 2022 9

10.On a perusal of the above averments in the counter affidavits filed by respondents 2 and 3, it can be seen that the recruitment process for the selection of Assistant Manager (AH) is not done through the PSC but through the Centre for Management Development as it requires technical expertise essential to maintain the grading of CMU under the minimum standard protocol of the Government of India. To those staff who are recruited through the PSC, no such bond is insisted. The post of Assistant Manager (AH) is a Managerial cadre and continuity in service in such Managerial cadre is necessary for maintaining the standard of the service rendered by the 2nd respondent. For the said purpose, they are also giving higher salary than that is given by other Departments to similarly qualified persons. In the above circumstances, the contention of the appellant that the respondents have not sustained any damage due to the resignation of the appellant before completing the bonded period of five years cannot be accepted.

11.As contended by the learned counsel for the respondents, Ext.P5 OM is applicable to employees of public enterprises owned and controlled by the Central Government and who have received training at the cost of public enterprises alone. In the instant case, the bond has been obtained not for the mere reason that training was provided to the employee at the cost of the respondent. The main reason is that WA.480 of 2022 10 continuity of service of persons holding technical posts is necessary for maintaining the standard of the service rendered by the 2nd respondent. In the above circumstance, the appellant cannot claim any benefit on the basis of Ext.P5 OM. For the very same reasons, the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant in Vijaya Kumar Anugandula and Ors. v. Dedicated frieght Corridor Corporation of India Ltd. (MANU /DE/4178/2018) does not apply to the facts of this case.

12. In paragraph 27 of the judgment in Vijaya Kumar Anugandula and Ors. (supra), the Delhi High court also considered the scope of reasonable classification between the employees to whom scientific and technical training is imparted and to whom such training is not imparted and held that:

".....It is settled law that reasonable classification is permissible; however, for a classification to be reasonable, it should have a nexus with the object of such classification failing which the classification would fall foul of the equal protection clause of the Constitution."

13.In the instant case, we are of the considered view that the explanation offered by the 2nd respondent for imposing such a condition that considering the nature of the work carried on by them it is necessary to have continuous service of technical staff for a period of not less than five years, is a reasonable one.

WA.480 of 2022 11

14.In the decision in Sispa India Limited v. Manas Pratim Deb (MANU/DE/6554/2011) relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, the challenge was against the impugned judgment and decree of the trial court. The appellant contended that they have spent huge amount for imparting training to the respondent, to justify the bond to serve the appellant for a period of five years. Further, according to the appellant, the respondent was taken abroad for the purpose of imparting training. In paragraph 8 of the above judgment, the Court specifically found that there is no evidence to prove that any such training was imparted to the respondent in his trips abroad and that the trips were basically commercial trips for dealing with the customers of the appellant abroad. The facts of the above case are entirely different and the justification given for reasonable classification is not a convincing one, which is not the case in the instant case.

15.At the time of arguments it is revealed that prior to the appellant, several other persons who had joined as Assistant Manager in the Board also left the service without completing the bond period and their claims for exonerating them from paying the bond amount was declined by the Board. Ext.R2(g) is the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C).26095 of 2009 dated 27.7.2016 in WA.480 of 2022 12 which, petitioners 1 to 5 who were working as Assistant Managers under the 2nd respondent after executing bond for serving the respondent for a period of five years and failing which to pay liquidated damages at Rs.2,00,000/-, failed to complete the period covered by the bond. They have claimed benefit of Exts.P16 and P17 orders by which two such persons were allegedly relieved without paying the bond amount as they were joining the Animal Husbandry Department. The above claim of the petitioners therein was opposed by the Government as well as the Board. As per the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent, those persons were relieved only after the bond period. The learned single judge found that the petitioners could not prove that the persons involved in Ext.P16 or P17 had been granted the benefit mentioned in those orders. In the above circumstance, the learned Single Judge dismissed W.P.(C).26095 of 2009 also.

16.From the contentions raised by the parties and also from Ext.R2(g) judgment, it can be seen that several persons joined as Assistant Manger (AH) under the 2nd respondent had discontinued their service when they got other employments, in spite of execution of bond for a period of five years. It was in the above context the initial bond amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was enhanced to Rs.5,00,000/- by the Board. WA.480 of 2022 13 In spite of that, the persons selected in the post of Assistant Manager (AH) used to terminate the service under the 2nd respondent. The appellant could not establish that in any such instance the Board had exonerated anyone from paying the bond amount. Writ petition filed by another 5 such persons was dismissed by this court. In the light of the available evidence, considering the nature of the activities carried on by the 2nd respondent, their contention that the service of qualified Veterinary Doctors for a continuous period of five years is necessary for maintaining the quality of service rendered by them could not be disbelieved. In the above circumstance, it cannot be held that insistence for a bond of Rs.5,00,000/- from Assistant Mangers (AH) to work for a period of not less than five years cannot be said to be arbitrary or against any principles of law. The learned Single Judge has considered all the relevant aspects in the impugned judgment. We do not find any illegality or irregularity in the finding of the learned Single Judge so as to call for any interference.

17.In the result, this Appeal stands dismissed.

Sd/-

Anu Sivaraman, Judge Sd/-

C.Pratheep Kumar, Judge Mrcs/14.12.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court