Kerala High Court
Niyas Thayil vs The Principal on 27 September, 2016
Author: P.V.Asha
Bench: P.V.Asha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA
MONDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF MAY 2017/8TH JYAISHTA, 1939
WP(C).No. 9908 of 2017 (K)
--------------------------
PETITIONERS:
------------
1. NIYAS THAYIL,
S/O.KUNHALANKUTTY,
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR,
CALICUT UNIVERSITY,
INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY,
KOHINOOR, THENHIPALAM - 673 636.
2. MARCEEN.N.K.,
D/O.RAYINKUTTY.N.K.,
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR,
CALICUT UNIVERSITY,
INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY,
KOHINOOR, THENHIPALAM-673 636.
3. JISY N.K.,
NEDUMKANDATHIL, D/O.BALAN.M.M.,
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR,
CALICUT UNIVERSITY,
INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY,
KOHINOOR, THENHIPALAM-673 636.
4. DIVYAKUMAR.K
S/O.THANKAMMA.K.J.,
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR,
CALICUT UNIVERSITY,
INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY,
KOHINOOR, THENHIPALAM-673 636.
5. RATHEESH.C,
S/O.LATE VISWANATHAN,
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, CALICUT UNIVERSITY,
INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY,
KOHINOOR, THENHIPALAM-673 636.
6. KIRAN.K.S., LECTURER,
CALICUT UNIVERSITY,
INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY,
KOHINOOR, THENHIPALAM-673 636.
--2--
--2--
WP(C).No. 9908 of 2017 (K)
--------------------------
7. FASIL T.MUHAMMED
LECTURER,
CALICUT UNIVERSITY,
INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY,
KOHINOOR, THENHIPALAM-673 636.
BY ADVS.SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR
SRI.P.GOPINATH
SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI
SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN
SRI.KURYAN THOMAS
SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM
RESPONDENT:
-----------
THE PRINCIPAL,
CALICUT UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF
ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY, KOHINOOR,
THENHIPALAM, MALAPPURAM-673 636.
BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 29-05-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
mbr/
WP(C).No. 9908 of 2017 (K)
--------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT-P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF RE-ENGAGEMENT OF
PETITIONER NOS.3 AND 5 DATED 27.09.2016.
EXHIBIT-P2: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 11.01.2017
SUBMITTED TO THE RESPONDENT BY THE SECRETARY OF
SFI CUIET UNIT OF THE COLLEGE.
EXHIBIT-P3: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE RESPONDENT
DATED 17.1.2017 CONSTITUTING THE COMMITTEE.
EXHIBIT-P4: TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER DATE 8.2.2017
ISSUED BASED ON THE COMPROMISE BY THE
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT-P5: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION OF THE REGISTRAR
OF THE CALICUT UNIVERSITY DATED 17.1.2017.
EXHIBIT-P6: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED TO THE
VICE CHANCELLOR OF UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT BY THE
PETITIONERS DATED 14.2.2017.
EXHIBIT-P7: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.U.O.NO.3288/2017/ADMN
DATED 8.3.2017 ISSUED BY THE ASST.REGISTRAR.
EXHIBIT-P8: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 1.3.2017 GIVEN BY
THE 3RD PETITIONER TO THE HON'BLE PRO VICE
CHANCELLOR UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE
mbr/
P.V.ASHA J.
--------------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.9908 of 2017
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 29th day of May, 2017
J U D G M E N T
The writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the petitioners are eligible to take classes in the Calicut University Institute of Engineering and Technology-the 1st respondent till their period of contract is over. The petitioners are teaching faculty of the respondent College appointed on contract basis. As per Ext.P1 order dated 27.09.2016, the tenure of their appointment was extended for a further period of one year or till the fresh appointment of contract staff, as mentioned in the order. In the present case the fresh engagements have already been made.
2. The learned Standing Counsel submitted that similar claims were already considered by this Court in W.P.(C).No.4849 of 2017 in which certain Assistant Professors who W.P.(C).No.9908 of 2017 2 were engaged as in the case of petitioners sought for directions to permit them to continue at least till the expiry of the period of contract. But seeing that the orders by which they were appointed provided that the appointments were for one year, those writ petitions were dismissed while allowing them to continue till 31.03.2017. By judgment dated 29.03.2017, W.A.No.566 of 2017 filed by them was dismissed.
As it is pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel that fresh appointments have already been made, petitioners cannot have any claim to continue in the post. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
P.V.ASHA, JUDGE.
AS