Kerala High Court
Jithin Jose vs State Of Kerala on 15 October, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2024 / 23RD ASWINA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 3613 OF 2024
PETITIONER/S:
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 K.C.VINCENT
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT
OF HIGHER EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANATHAPURAM,
PIN - 695001
WP(C)Nos. 3613 of 2024 & Con.Cases 2
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
FOR R1 BY SMT.K.G.SAROJINI AND SRI.PREMCHAND R.NAIR,
GOVT.PLEADERS.
FOR R2 TO R5 BY ADV.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY, STANDING
COUNSEL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
04.10.2024, ALONG WITH WP(C)NO.34727/2023, 4094/2024 AND
CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 15.10.2024 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C)Nos. 3613 of 2024 & Con.Cases 3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2024 / 23RD ASWINA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 34727 OF 2023
PETITIONER/S:
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
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
WP(C)Nos. 3613 of 2024 & Con.Cases 4
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 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.
KALEESWARAM RAJ
APARNA NARAYAN MENON
THULASI K. RAJ
RESPONDENT/S:
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
5 PRINCIPAL,
WP(C)Nos. 3613 of 2024 & Con.Cases 5
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, KUTTANAD,
PULINCUNNU, ALAPPUZHA -, PIN - 688504
FOR R1 BY SMT.K.G.SAROJINI AND SRI.PREMCHAND R.NAIR,
GOVT.PLEADERS.
FOR R2 TO R5 BY ADV.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY, STANDING
COUNSEL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
04.10.2024, ALONG WITH WP(C)NO.3613/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES,
THE COURT ON 15.10.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C)Nos. 3613 of 2024 & Con.Cases 6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2024 / 23RD ASWINA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 4094 OF 2024
PETITIONER/S:
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
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
WP(C)Nos. 3613 of 2024 & Con.Cases 7
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.
KALEESWARAM RAJ
APARNA NARAYAN MENON
CHINNU MARIA ANTONY
THULASI K. RAJ(K/000814/2015)
RESPONDENT/S:
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, KOCHI, KERALA,
PIN - 682022
WP(C)Nos. 3613 of 2024 & Con.Cases 8
5 PRINCIPAL,
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, KUTTANAD,
PULINCUNNU, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688504
FOR R1 BY SMT.K.G.SAROJINI AND SRI.PREMCHAND R.NAIR,
GOVT.PLEADERS.
FOR R2 TO R5 BY ADV.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY, STANDING
COUNSEL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
04.10.2024, ALONG WITH WP(C)NO.3613/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES,
THE COURT ON 15.10.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C)Nos. 3613 of 2024 & Con.Cases 9
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2024 / 23RD ASWINA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 35305 OF 2023
PETITIONER/S:
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
W/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 K.C.VINCENT
RESPONDENT/S:
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
WP(C)Nos. 3613 of 2024 & Con.Cases 10
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
FOR R1 BY SMT.K.G.SAROJINI AND SRI.PREMCHAND R.NAIR,
GOVT.PLEADERS.
FOR R2 TO R6 BY ADV.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY, STANDING
COUNSEL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
04.10.2024, ALONG WITH WP(C)NO.3613/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES,
THE COURT ON 15.10.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C)Nos. 3613 of 2024 & Con.Cases 11
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2024 / 23RD ASWINA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 4803 OF 2024
PETITIONER/S:
1 ABIN JOHN JOSEPH
AGED 36 YEARS
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 K.C.VINCENT
RESPONDENT/S:
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
WP(C)Nos. 3613 of 2024 & Con.Cases 12
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
FOR R1 BY SMT.K.G.SAROJINI AND SRI.PREMCHAND R.NAIR,
GOVT.PLEADERS.
FOR R2 TO R5 BY ADV.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY, STANDING
COUNSEL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
04.10.2024, ALONG WITH WP(C)NO.3613/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES,
THE COURT ON 15.10.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C)Nos. 3613 of 2024 & Con.Cases 13
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2024 / 23RD ASWINA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 16606 OF 2024
PETITIONER/S:
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.
KALEESWARAM RAJ
THULASI K. RAJ
APARNA NARAYAN MENON
RESPONDENT/S:
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,
COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY UNIVERSITY
ROAD, SOUTH KALAMASSERY, KALAMASSERY, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 682022
4 DEPUTY REGISTRAR
WP(C)Nos. 3613 of 2024 & Con.Cases 14
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
FOR R1 BY SMT.K.G.SAROJINI AND SRI.PREMCHAND R.NAIR,
GOVT.PLEADERS.
FOR R2 TO R5 BY ADV.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY, STANDING
COUNSEL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
04.10.2024, ALONG WITH WP(C)NO.3613/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES,
THE COURT ON 15.10.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C)Nos. 3613 of 2024 & Con.Cases 15
JUDGMENT
[WP(C) Nos.3613/2024, 34727/2023, 4094/2024, 35305/2023, 4803/2024 & 16606/2024] In all these Writ Petitions, the petitioners are working as Assistant Professors in the College of Engineering under the Cochin University of Science and Technology, the 2 nd respondent in WP(C)No.35305/2023.
2. All these petitioners were appointed as per the selection process conducted by the University wherein, the notification contemplated that the appointments shall be for a period of one year on the consolidated pay of a certain amount, and it was also specified in the notification that, the initial period of appointment shall be for a period of one year which may be renewed for maximum up to two years with breaks during May-June vacation months or till regular recruits join duty whichever is earlier. On the basis of the selection process so conducted, all these petitioners were included in the rank list and were given appointments in terms of the notification for the periods specified therein. Before joining duty, all the petitioners WP(C)Nos. 3613 of 2024 & Con.Cases 16 executed agreements with the University wherein the terms of the appointment, including the period for which they were appointed, were clearly specified. Most of the petitioners in these cases have completed their initial terms of one year plus two additional years as extended in tune with the terms of the notification, but still, their tenure was extended for temporary periods of six months.
3. In the meanwhile, the University issued an order dated 9.8.2023, which is produced as Ext.P5 in WP(C)No.35305/2023, wherein it was contemplated that no contract appointments shall be made for a period exceeding four years. The said University order was issued based on a decision taken by the Syndicate after noticing that, on completion of five years, the employees in service, would become entitled to the benefits of the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act and hence, the University would be held liable to pay the gratuity to the employees so appointed beyond the period of five years. Therefore, Ext.P5 was issued to avoid such a situation. Therefore, a fresh notification dated 01.10.2023 was issued by the University inviting applications to the posts now occupied by the petitioners on a contract basis. The said notification is produced as Ext.P7 in WP(C)No.35305/2023, and in the said notification, it was WP(C)Nos. 3613 of 2024 & Con.Cases 17 provided that, the candidates who have worked for four years or more on contract appointment in the University will only be considered in the absence of candidates who have not completed four years of appointment on contract basis. These writ petitions were submitted challenging Exts.P5 and P7 notifications referred to above.
4. While challenging the said notifications, the petitioners are also seeking the relief of directing the respondents to permit the petitioners to continue in the said post until the vacancies are permanently filled up through a regular selection process.
5. Counter affidavits were filed by the University in all these cases denying the right of the petitioners to seek the reliefs sought in the writ petitions. It was averred that the Syndicate of the University had taken a conscious decision to engage faculty in the College of Engineering, Cochin University College of Engineering, Kuttanadu and Kunjali Marakkar School of Marine Engineering, conducted by the University, by which it was resolved to appoint regular faculties only against 50% of the posts, and the remaining posts are to be filled up on contract basis. Exhibit R2(a) was the order passed by the University in this regard. In the implementation of the decision so taken, notifications were issued for carrying out the selection process, WP(C)Nos. 3613 of 2024 & Con.Cases 18 in which the petitioners participated, and were selected based on the ranks they could secure. Accordingly, the petitioners have entered into an agreement in writing with the University, which contained a specific clause to the effect 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 in the University nor shall it be obligatory on the part of the appointee to accept an employment under the employer after the contract period. In the case of most of the petitioners, the terms are over and they are continuing in the employment based on the extension granted to them by the University upon executing contracts for such extensions. According to the University, the petitioners do not have any right to seek re- appointment as their terms are already over.
6. In all these writ petitions, interim orders were passed by this Court permitting the petitioners to continue in service and on the strength of the said orders, all of them are continuing.
7. Heard Sri.K.C.Vincent, the learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C)Nos.35305/2023, 3613/2024 and 4803/2024, Smt.Thulasi K.Raj, the learned counsel appearing for WP(C) Nos. WP(C)Nos. 3613 of 2024 & Con.Cases 19 16606/2024, 34727/2023 and 4094/2024 and S.P. Aravindakshan Pillay, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
9. The learned counsels appearing for the petitioners vehemently contended that, in the light of the various decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court, the petitioners are entitled to get reappointment and to continue in service, until the vacancies are filled up permanently through a regular selection process. It was also contended that, the stipulations in the notification that no person can be continued after four years are also not legally sustainable. The learned counsels for the petitioners relied on the decisions in State of Haryana v. Piara Singh and Others [(1992)4 SCC 118], Hargurpratap Singh v. State of Punjab and Others [(2007)13 SCC 292], Manish Gupta v. President, Jan Bhagidari Samiti [2022(2) KLT OnLine 1090(SC)], a judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1441/2021 in Cochin University of Science and Technology v. Sudheesh Kumar P.S. and Ors, (Ext.P13 in WP(C)No.34727/2023) and a Single Bench judgment rendered by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in C.W.P.No.6377/2014.
WP(C)Nos. 3613 of 2024 & Con.Cases 20
10. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents contended that, the petitioners do not have any vested right to seek the reliefs sought for. According to him, the petitioners have consciously and with open eyes entered into a contract with the University, wherein the period of service was confined to a specified period and upon completion of such period, the service would come into an end, and therefore, they cannot seek any re-appointment or continuance of their service beyond the period specified in the said contracts. The respondents also raised contentions to justify the reasons that prompted them to incorporate a clause in the fresh notification that, the appointment of contract appointees who had already been granted an appointment and had served for more than four years, could be considered only in the absence of qualified hands. Reliance was placed on the observations made by a Five Judges Bench in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others v. Umadevi and others [(2006)4 SCC 1], Director, Institute of Management Development, U.P. v. Smt. Pushpa Srivastava [(1992)4 SCC 33], Yogesh Mahajan v. Prof. R.C.Deka, Director, All India Institute of Medical Sciences [(2018)3 SCC 218] Rajasthan State Roadways Transport Corporation v. Paramjeet Singh WP(C)Nos. 3613 of 2024 & Con.Cases 21 [(2019)6 SCC 250] and Union Territory of Ladakh v Jammu and Kashmir National Conference (2023 SCC OnLine SC 1140).
11. Thus, the short question that arises for consideration is 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 into with the University. Another question that has to be considered is 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.
12. As far as the right of the petitioners to continue in service beyond the period specified in the notification as well as the respective contracts are concerned, the main contentions raised by the petitioners are on the strength of the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Piara Singh's case (supra). In the said decision, in paragraph 46 thereof, it was observed as follows:
"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."
It was contended that, the Five Judges Bench in Umadevi's case (supra), even though referred to the observations in Piara Singh's WP(C)Nos. 3613 of 2024 & Con.Cases 22 case(supra), did not disagree with the proposition laid down as referred to above. It was also pointed out that, the said legal position was accepted and followed by this Court in Ext.P13 judgment exhibited in WP(C)No.34727/2023 which was a case in connection with employment with the respondent University itself.
13. Besides, in Manish Gupta's case (supra)also, a similar legal proposition was laid down in the case of teachers employed under a scheme formulated by the Government of Madhya Pradesh.
14. On carefully going through the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court in various decisions referred to above, it is to be noted that, in Piara Sigh's case (supra), this Court specifically laid down that an adhoc or temporary employee must be replaced only by the regularly selected employee, and not by another temporary or casual employee.
15. However, the crucial aspect to be noticed is that, Piara Singh's case (supra) was rendered in respect of class III and IV employees in the States of Punjab and Haryana on adhoc basis. They were initially appointed for a period of six months, later they continued for years together on the strength of various orders passed by the Government from time to time. In the said decision, the said WP(C)Nos. 3613 of 2024 & Con.Cases 23 employees were ultimately directed to be regularized by formulating a scheme in this regard. However, in Umadevi's case (supra), this Court considered the rights of the adhoc/contract employees when a claim for regularization of such employees arose. After referring to a large number of decisions including Piara Singh's case (supra), it was observed in paragraph 43 of the said judgment as follows:
"43. Thus, it is clear that adherence to the rule of equality in public employment is a basic feature of our Constitution and since the rule of law is the core of our Constitution, a court would certainly be disabled from passing an order upholding a violation of Article 14 or in ordering the overlooking of the need to comply with the requirements of Article 14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution. Therefore, consistent with the scheme for public employment, this Court while laying down the law, has necessarily to hold that unless the appointment is in terms of the relevant rules and after a proper competition among qualified persons, the same would not confer any right on the appointee. If it is a contractual appointment, the appointment comes to an end at the end of the contract, if it were an engagement or appointment on daily wages or casual basis, the same would come to an end when it is discontinued. Similarly, a temporary employee could not claim to be made permanent on the expiry of his term of appointment. It has also to be clarified that merely because a temporary employee or a casual wage worker is continued for a time beyond the term of his appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made permanent, merely on the strength of such continuance, if the original appointment was not made by following a due process of selection as envisaged by the relevant rules. It is not open to the WP(C)Nos. 3613 of 2024 & Con.Cases 24 court to prevent regular recruitment at the instance of temporary employees whose period of employment has come to an end or of ad hoc employees who by the very nature of their appointment, do not acquire any right. The High Courts acting under Article 226 of the Constitution, should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption, regularisation, or permanent continuance unless the recruitment itself was made regularly and in terms of the constitutional scheme. Merely because an employee had continued under cover of an order of the court, which we have described as "litigious employment" in the earlier part of the judgment, he would not be entitled to any right to be absorbed or made permanent in the service. In fact, in such cases, the High Court may not be justified in issuing interim directions, since, after all, if ultimately the employee approaching it is found entitled to relief, it may be possible for it to mould the relief in such a manner that ultimately no prejudice will be caused to him, whereas an interim direction to continue his employment would hold up the regular procedure for selection or impose on the State the burden of paying an employee who is really not required. The courts must be careful in ensuring that they do not interfere unduly with the economic arrangement of its affairs by the State or its instrumentalities or lend themselves the instruments to facilitate the bypassing of the constitutional and statutory mandates."
16. Thus, it was specifically laid down that, if it is a contractual appointment, the appointment comes to an end at the end of the contract, if it was an engagement or appointment on daily wages or casual basis, the same would come to an end when it is discontinued. Of course, it is true that, those observations were made when a case WP(C)Nos. 3613 of 2024 & Con.Cases 25 was considered seeking regularization of the employees who were engaged on adhoc basis. But, in clear terms, it was laid down that, beyond the period of contract, the employees concerned did not have any right to continue. Of course, it is true that, the observations made in Piara Singh's case (supra) to the effect that, the adhoc or temporary employees should not be replaced by another adhoc employee was not disagreed in Umadevi's case (supra). However, as mentioned above, Piara Singh was a case in which the petitioners were class III and IV employees who were initially appointed for six months and were permitted to continue years together on the strength of various orders.
17. As far as the case of the petitioners is concerned, all these appointments were made on the basis of the notifications issued by the University, specifying that the period of appointment shall be initially for a period of one year, which was extendable up to two years. In response to the said notification, the petitioners have submitted their applications, which amounts to an admission of the conditions specifically put in the said notification, and were selected based on their merits. Still further, before entering into the service, all the petitioners executed separate and individual contracts with the WP(C)Nos. 3613 of 2024 & Con.Cases 26 University wherein the restriction on continuation beyond the period was specifically incorporated. The learned Standing Counsel brought the attention of this Court to clause 4(a) of one of such agreements which form part of the writ petition, which reads as follows:
"4(a): 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 in the University nor shall it be obligatory on the part of the appointee to accept an employment under the employer after the contract period."
18. Thus, it is evident that, besides accepting the tenure of appointment as specified in the notification by submitting the application in response to the same, all the petitioners re-affirmed their acknowledgement by entering into a written contract with specific terms with the University. Therefore, the factual situation that exists in these cases are different from the factual situation in the case of Piara Singh's case (supra) where apparently there was no express contract between the employees and employer. In addition to that, the petitioners therein were class III and IV employees who were educationally backward, whereas, in these writ petitions, all the petitioners are highly educated and have entered into a contract by fully knowing the consequences of the same, wherein the tenure of WP(C)Nos. 3613 of 2024 & Con.Cases 27 appointment was very specific. During all these years, they were abiding by the conditions of the agreement, and in none of the cases, there is a contention that such a clause in the agreement is unreasonable or opposed to public policy and therefore not enforceable.
19. Of course, it is true that, in Manish Gupta's case (supra), the case considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court was that of the appointment of teachers in colleges. In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after referring to Rattan Lal and Others v. State of Haryana and Others [(1985)4 SCC 43] and Hargurpratap Singh's case (supra), held that the adhoc employees could not be replaced by another adhoc employees and it can be replaced only by another candidate who regularly appointed by following a regular procedure prescribed. However, while carefully going through the factual circumstances therein, it is to be noted that, the appointments therein were made in a scheme named 'Janabhageerathi' a scheme formulated by the State of Madhya Pradesh by which the management of Government colleges were handed over to a committee so as to ensure public participation in the Government colleges. The said committee started the same self-financing courses WP(C)Nos. 3613 of 2024 & Con.Cases 28 and the payments were to be made on contractual basis. From the observations made in paragraph 12 of the said judgment, it is evident that, the contention raised by the State of Madhya Pradesh that the appointments were made as Guest Lectures and not as adhoc employees were rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court being convinced, after going through the notification therein that, the persons concerned therein were appointed on adhoc basis. Therefore, that is the difference in the factual circumstances which require attention in this regard.
20. As observed above, here in this case, the petitioners consciously and voluntarily entered into a contract which contains specific terms regarding the tenure of appointment, and the said clause is binding upon them. As far as Ext.P13 judgment rendered by this Court in W.A.No.1441/2021 is concerned, the factual circumstances therein were also different. That was a case in which the University conducted a selection process for the post of Sweeper cum Cleaner and the petitioners therein were included in the rank list. However, they could not secure regular appointments having regard to the limited number of sanctioned vacancies. Later, they were engaged on temporary basis as Sweeper cum Cleaner on daily WP(C)Nos. 3613 of 2024 & Con.Cases 29 wages when a temporary need arose. When they were sought to be substituted with fresh adhoc employees, a challenge was raised before this Court and the learned Single Judge allowed the prayers sought by them. Accordingly, the said Writ Appeal was filed in which the decision of the learned Single Judge was upheld by following the decision in Piara Singh's case (supra), Manish Gupta's case (supra) etc. In the said decision, this Court noticed that, the observations in Piara Sigh's case (supra) with regard to the right of the adhoc employee to continue till the regular employees are appointed, was not disagreed by the Apex Court in Umadevi's case. However, the decision was ultimately taken not to interfere with the findings of the learned Single Judge, by taking note of the peculiar factual circumstances existed in that cases. The relevant observations made by this Court in the said decision in paragraph 11 reads as follows:
"11. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the principle that a temporary employee shall not be replaced by another temporary employee and that he shall be replaced only by a regular employee, is a principle consistently followed the Apex Court and various High Courts. As clarified by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Dr.Barinder Kaur, the said proposition as reiterated in Piara Singh was not disagreed with by the Constitutional bench of the Apex Court in Umadevi WP(C)Nos. 3613 of 2024 & Con.Cases 30 (3), though it was held Umadevi (3) that such employees do not have any right to claim regularisation and that their engagement ends when their term ends. Of course, the said principle cannot be applied when engagement on daily wage basis is governed by statutory rules. In the instant case, even according to the University, the engagement of employees on daily wage basis is governed by Ext.R3(a) executive order. No doubt, the principle that public employment is a property of the nation and the same has to be shared equally among citizens, is laudable. The said principle, according to us, has no application to the facts of the present case. As noted, it is a case where persons who have participated in a regular selection process for appointment to a last grade post and not appointed for want of sufficient vacancies, were later accommodated in some of the temporary posts. The fact that they could not secure any other employment is evident from the fact that they have approached this Court for continuance. It is in the said circumstances that the learned Single Judge chose to direct the University to permit them to continue until the temporary posts exist. It is a direction issued in exercise of the discretionary and equitable jurisdiction vested in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Such discretionary orders are not interfered with in appeal under normal circumstances, especially when interference would result in inequitable results."
21. Thus, it is evident that, the said case is factually different from the case advanced by the petitioners and hence the observations made therein cannot be made applicable to the case of the petitioners herein.
WP(C)Nos. 3613 of 2024 & Con.Cases 31
22. However, even while holding so, I am of the view that, the experience the petitioners have acquired through their past service in the establishment cannot be ignored. Their experience could be beneficial for ensuring better quality of the education provided by the colleges under the University. Therefore, when the selection process is to be initiated afresh, in the terms of contract employment, essentially, some preference has to be given to the candidates who have already rendered their valuable services to the institution under the University, by providing grace marks.
23. The next question that arises for consideration is with regard to the condition imposed by the University in respect of the contract employees who have already completed four years of service. It is an undisputed fact that such restrictions were imposed based on the order passed by the University bearing No.CUSAT/AD(F).F3/3602/2023 dated 09.08.2023 (Ext.P5 in WPC No.35305/2023) and in the said order, the recommendations made by the Standing Committee was accepted and thereby additional restrictions were imposed. The relevant portions of the recommendations of the Committee are as follows:
"1) As per the Gratuity Act, an employee is eligible for gratuity payment after completing 5 years of continuous service with one WP(C)Nos. 3613 of 2024 & Con.Cases 32 employer. Hence the existing appointment of faculty for a period of one year which may be extended by one year each for a maximum period of three years will not attract gratuity for such contractual faculty if they will not get reappointed again without sufficient break of at least one year. So there is no need to change the existing mode of appointment of contractual faculty. But care must be taken while reappointing the existing contractual faculty such that the continuous service will not exceed four years. Opinion from the University Standing Counsel has been sought by the University and which also supports this recommendations.
2) In the case of Contractual appointments of non teaching staff also, care has to be taken that no one is appointed for more than four continuous years.
3) In the case of existing contractual employees, their continuous period of employment needs to be ascertained and University has to make sure in the future that no one is working for more than five continuous years."
24. Thus, it is evident that, the said restriction was imposed only to avoid the liability to pay the gratuity to the employees who have completed five years of continued service under the University. As far as the payment of gratuity is concerned, it is a statutory right available to the employees, and such right cannot be denied by any person by restricting the opportunity of appointment in the establishment. As far as the University is concerned, it is a public establishment and under no circumstances such a measure is expected from such an institution. Since the admitted position is that WP(C)Nos. 3613 of 2024 & Con.Cases 33 the only reason behind the introduction of such a restrictive clause is to avoid a statutory liability likely to be imposed upon the University, under no circumstances can the same be upheld. Therefore, the notification bearing No.Ad/D4/FR/Contract/Notif/2019 dated 01.10.2023 issued by the 2nd respondent-University to the extent it contains the restriction in the appointment of persons who completed four years or more is found to be not legally sustainable.
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.WP(C)Nos. 3613 of 2024 & Con.Cases 34
iii) All the petitioners will have the right to participate in the selection process notified as per the Notification dated 1.10.2023 or any other notifications irrespective of the length of service they have already completed under contract employment with the University.
iv) The University shall provide preference by way of additional grace marks for the services already rendered by the respective petitioners while conducting selection process for subsequent appointments, if not already provided, by adopting a reasonable criteria determined by the University.
Sd/-
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE pkk WP(C)Nos. 3613 of 2024 & Con.Cases 35 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 34727/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ADVICE MEMO DATED 24.08.2020 ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ADMIN F ORDER DATED 15.10.2020, SHOWING THE CONCERNED APPOINTMENTS IN SL.NOS. 1 &3, ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
NO.AD.F3/CUCEK(MCA)/2020 DATED25.08.2021
ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR PERMITTING TO RENEW THE CONTRACT OF THE PETITIONERS WITH EFFECT FROM SEPTEMBER 2021.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
NO.AD.F3/CUCEK(MCA)/2020 DATED23.08.2022
ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR PERMITTING TO RENEW THE CONTRACT OF THE PETITIONERS WITH EFFECT FROM SEPTEMBER 2022.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.AD.F3/CUCEK(MCA)/2020 DATED 05.09.2023 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR EXTENDING THE CONTRACT OF THE PETITIONERS WITH EFFECT FROM 14.09.2023.
EXHIBIT P5(A) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.09.23 STATING THAT SANCTION HAS BEEN GRANTED BY THE VICE CHANCELLOR FOR RENEWAL OF THE CONTRACT.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.RECT/2020120AP(CONTRACT)/SOE-CUCEK- KMSME(PF- 1) (I) DATED 24.06.2021 ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.AD.F3/CONTRACT CUCEK(ECE)/2018 DATED 12.08.2022 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.AD.F3/CONTRACT/CUCEK(ECE)/2018 DATED 12.07.2023 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER WP(C)Nos. 3613 of 2024 & Con.Cases 36 NO.CUSAT/AD(F).F3/3602/2023 DATED 9.8.2023 EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE TERMINATION ORDER NO.CUSAT/AD(F).F3/3812/2023 DATED 02.09.2023 OF SRI. RASHID KAREEM EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THIS NOTIFICATION NO.
AD.D4/FR/CONTRACT/NOTIF/2019 DATED
01.10.2023, ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR.
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.
CUSAT/AD(F).F3/3287/2023 DATED 26.07.2023
ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR.
EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.A NO.
1441/2021 DATED 14.02.2023 OF THIS COURT. EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE 7 TH PETITIONER DATED 13.03.2020 ALONG WITH TYPED COPY RESPONDENT EXHIBITS EXHIBIT R2(A) A TRUE COPY OF UNIVERSITY'S ORDER NO.AD.G3/203/2014(T)-I DATED 07.12.2020 EXHIBIT R2(B) A TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER WITH THE UNIVERSITY ON HIS APPOINTMENT ON CONTRACT BASIS AT CUCEK FOR A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS W.E.F. 14.08.2023 EXHIBIT R2(C) A TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BY THE 4TH PETITIONER WITH THE UNIVERSITY ON HER APPOINTMENT ON CONTRACT BASIS AT CUCEK FOR A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS W.E.F. 14.08.2023 EXHIBIT R2(D) A TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BY THE 5TH PETITIONER WITH THE UNIVERSITY ON HER APPOINTMENT ON CONTRACT BASIS AT CUCEK FOR A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS W.E.F. 14.08.2023 EXHIBIT R2(E) A TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER WITH THE UNIVERSITY ON HER APPOINTMENT ON CONTRACT BASIS AT CUCEK FOR A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS W.E.F. 14.09.2023 EXHIBIT R2(F) A TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BY THE 6TH PETITIONER WITH THE UNIVERSITY ON HER WP(C)Nos. 3613 of 2024 & Con.Cases 37 APPOINTMENT ON CONTRACT BASIS AT CUCEK FOR A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS W.E.F. 14.09.2023 EXHIBIT R2(G) A TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER WITH THE UNIVERSITY ON HIS APPOINTMENT ON CONTRACT BASIS AT CUCEK FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR W.E.F. 14.09.2023 EXHIBIT R2(H) A TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BY THE 7TH PETITIONER WITH THE UNIVERSITY ON HIS APPOINTMENT ON CONTRACT BASIS AT CUCEK FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR W.E.F. 03.03.2023 EXHIBIT R2(I) A TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT LETTER NO.E2/94/2022/H.EDN DATED 21.02.2023 WP(C)Nos. 3613 of 2024 & Con.Cases 38 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4094/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ADVICE MEMO DATED 24.08.2020 ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ADMIN F ORDER DATED 15.10.2020, SHOWING THE CONCERNED APPOINTMENTS IN SL.NOS. 1 & 3, ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.AD.F3/CUCEK(MCA)/2020 DATED 25.08.2021 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR PERMITTING TO RENEW THE CONTRACT OF THE PETITIONERS WITH EFFECT FROM SEPTEMBER 2021 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.AD.F3/CUCEK(MCA)/2020 DATED 23.08.2022 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR PERMITTING TO RENEW THE CONTRACT OF THE PETITIONERS WITH EFFECT FROM SEPTEMBER 2022.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.AD.F3/CUCEK(MCA)/2020 DATED 05.09.2023 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR EXTENDING THE CONTRACT OF THE PETITIONERS WITH EFFECT FROM 14.09.2023.
EXHIBIT P5(A) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.09.23 STATING THAT SANCTION HAS BEEN GRANTED BY THE VICE CHANCELLOR FOR RENEWAL OF THE CONTRACT.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.RECT/2020120AP(CONTRACT)/SOE-CUCEK- KMSME(PF-1) (I) DATED 24.06.2021 ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER
NO.AD.F3/CONTRACT/CUCEK(ECE)/2018 DATED
12.08.2022 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR EXTENDING THE SERVICE OF THE PETITIONERS FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR WITH EFFECT FROM 11.08.2022 .
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER
NO.AD.F3/CONTRACT/CUCEK(ECE)/2018 DATED
WP(C)Nos. 3613 of 2024 & Con.Cases 39
12.07.2023 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.CUSAT/AD(F).F3/3602/2023 DATED 9.8.2023. EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE TERMINATION ORDER OF SRI.
RASHID KAREEM.
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.
CUSAT/AD(F).F3/3287/2023 DATED 26.07.2023
ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR.
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE 7TH
PETITIONER DATED 13.03.2020.ALONG WITH TYPED COPY EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.A NO.
1441/2022 AND CONNECTED MATTER DATED
14.02.2023 BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER OF THE
HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN WP(C)
NO.34727 OF 2023 DATED 27.10.23.
EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT
WP(C)Nos. 3613 of 2024 & Con.Cases 40
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 35305/2023
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE
ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR TO THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 24.06.2020 EXHIBIT P1(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR TO THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 03.03.2023 EXHIBIT P1(B) A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 12.07.2023 ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR AND ADDRESSED TO THE PRINCIPAL PERMITTING RENEWAL OF THE SERVICE OF THE 1ST PETITIONER AND OTHERS EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR TO THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 28.05.2016 EXHIBIT P2(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR TO THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 31.12.2019 EXHIBIT P2(B) A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13.03.2023 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR SANCTIONING APPOINTMENT OF THE 2ND PETITIONER AND OTHERS EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR-IN-CHARGE TO THE 3RD PETITIONER DATED 28.12.2022 EXHIBIT P3(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14.03.2023 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR SANCTIONING APPOINTMENT OF THE 3RD PETITIONER EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR TO THE 4TH PETITIONER DATED 24.06.2020 EXHIBIT P4(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 30.09.2023 ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR AND ADDRESSED TO THE PRINCIPAL PERMITTING RENEWAL OF THE SERVICE OF THE 4TH PETITIONER AND ANOTHER WP(C)Nos. 3613 of 2024 & Con.Cases 41 EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. CUSAT/AD (F).F3/3602/2023 DATED 09.08.2023 ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 02.09.2023 ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATE 01.10.2023 BEARING NO.
AD.D4/FR/CONTRACT/NOTIF/2019 RESPONDENT EXHIBITS EXHIBIT R2(A) A TRUE COPY OF UNIVERSITY'S ORDER NO.AD.G3/203/2014(T)-I DATED 07.12.2020 EXHIBIT R2(B) A TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER WITH THE UNIVERSITY ON HIS APPOINTMENT ON CONTRACT BASIS AT CUCEK FOR A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS W.E.F. 14.08.2023 EXHIBIT R2(C) A TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER WITH THE UNIVERSITY ON HIS APPOINTMENT ON CONTRACT BASIS AT CUCEK FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR W.E.F. 03.03.2023 EXHIBIT R2(D) A TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER WITH THE UNIVERSITY ON HER APPOINTMENT ON CONTRACT BASIS AT CUCEK FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR W.E.F. 02.03.2023 EXHIBIT R2(E) A TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BY THE 4TH PETITIONER WITH THE UNIVERSITY ON HIS APPOINTMENT ON CONTRACT BASIS AT CUCEK FOR A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS W.E.F. 10.10.2023 WP(C)Nos. 3613 of 2024 & Con.Cases 42 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4803/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. CUSAT/AD (F).F3/3602/2023 DATED 09.08.2023 ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATE 01.10.2023 BEARING NO.
AD.D4/FR/CONTRACT/NOTIF/2019 EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 27.10.2023 IN W.P.(C) NO. 35305 OF 2023 EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.
AD.F1/NOTIFICATION OF CONTRACT TEACHERS/2012 DATED 06.01.2024 ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 30.01.2024 IN W.P.(C) NO. 3613 OF 2024 EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 02.02.2024 IN W.P.(C) NO. 4094 OF 2024 WP(C)Nos. 3613 of 2024 & Con.Cases 43 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16606/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ADVICE MEMO NO. AD.
FE/CONTRACT/CUCEK(EEE)/2018-19 ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR DATED 18.06.2019.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.
AD.FE/CONTRACT/CUCEK(EEE)/2018-19 DATED 30.06.2020 ISSUED BY THE JOINT REGISTRAR PERMITTING TO RENEW THE CONTRACT OF THE PETITIONER WITH EFFECT FROM 02.07.2020. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.
CUSAT/AD(F).F3/2847/2021 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR DATED 18.08.2021.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE VIDE NO. CUSAT/AD(F).F3/5242/2019(1) ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR DATED 22.08.2022.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.
CUSAT/AD(F).F3/3849/2022 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR DATED 25.08.2022.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.
CUSAT/AD(F).F3/3602/2023 DATED 09.08.2023 EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.A NO.
1441/2021 AND CONNECTED MATTER DATED
14.02.2023 BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER OF THE HON'BLE
HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN WP(C) NO.34727 OF
2023 DATED 27.10.2023.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.
CUSAT/AD(F).F3/4469/2023 DATED 16.10.2023
ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION
NO.AD.F1/NOTIFICATION OF CONTRACT
TEACHERS/2012 DATED 06.01.2024 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. AD.F3/214/2018- 19 ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR TO THE PRINCIPAL, WP(C)Nos. 3613 of 2024 & Con.Cases 44 SOE DATED 12.02.2024.
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER NO.
CUSAT/AD(F).F3/1020/2024 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR DATED 01.03.2024.
EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 23.02.2024 IN W.P(C)NO.4094/2024.
RESPONDENTS EXHIBIT EXHIBIT R2(A) A TRUE COPY OF UNIVERSITY'S ORDER NO.AD.G3/203/2014(T)-I DATED 07.12.2020 EXHIBIT R2(B) A TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 08.02.2024 EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER WITH THE UNIVERSITY ON HIS APPOINTMENT ON CONTRACT BASIS AS ASSISTANT PROFESSOR IN THE DIVISION OF ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING AT THE SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING FOR A PERIOD OF THREE MONTHS W.E.F. 08.02.2024 OR TILL FRESH CONTRACT/REGULAR APPOINTMENT IS MADE EXHIBIT R2(C) A TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT LETTER NO.E2/94/2022/H.EDN DATED 21.02.2023 WP(C)Nos. 3613 of 2024 & Con.Cases 45 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3613/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.
CUSAT/AD(F).F3/5495/2023 DATED 21.12.2023, IN RELATION TO THE PETITIONERS 1, 4 AND 5, ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN RELATION TO THE 2ND PETITIONER BEARING NO.
CUSAT/AD(F).F3/145/2024 DATED 10.01.2024 AND ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO IN RELATION TO THE 3RD PETITIONER BEARING NO.AD.F3/CONTRACT/CUCEK(CSE)/2018-19 DATED 28.03.2023 AND ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 31.10.2021 AUTHENTICATED BY THE REGISTRAR EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. CUSAT/AD (F).F3/3602/2023 DATED 09.08.2023 ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 02.09.2023 ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATE 01.10.2023 BEARING NO.
AD.D4/FR/CONTRACT/NOTIF/2019 ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 20.10.2023 IN W.P.(C) NO. 34727 OF 2023 EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 27.10.2023 IN W.P.(C) NO. 35305 OF 2023 EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.
AD.F1/NOTIFICATION OF CONTRACT TEACHERS/2012 DATED 06.01.2024 ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 02.02.2024 IN W.P.(C) NO. 4094 OF 2024 RESPONDENT EXHIBITS WP(C)Nos. 3613 of 2024 & Con.Cases 46 EXHIBIT R2(A) A TRUE COPY OF UNIVERSITY'S ORDER NO.AD.G3/203/2014(T)-I DATED 07.12.2020 EXHIBIT R2(B) A TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER WITH THE UNIVERSITY ON HER APPOINTMENT ON CONTRACT BASIS AT CUCEK FOR A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS W.E.F. 24.11.2023 EXHIBIT R2(C) TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BY THE 4TH PETITIONER WITH THE UNIVERSITY ON HER APPOINTMENT ON CONTRACT BASIS AT CUCEK FOR A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS W.E.F. 24.11.2023 EXHIBIT R2(D) A TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER WITH THE UNIVERSITY ON HER APPOINTMENT ON CONTRACT BASIS AT CUCEK FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR W.E.F. 03.01.2024 EXHIBIT R2(E) A TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER WITH THE UNIVERSITY ON HER APPOINTMENT ON CONTRACT BASIS AT CUCEK FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR W.E.F. 02.03.2023 EXHIBIT R2(F) THE 5TH PETITIONER HAD EXECUTED AN AGREEMENT WITH THE UNIVERSITY IN THIS REGARD. A TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BY THE 5TH PETITIONER WITH THE UNIVERSITY ON HER APPOINTMENT ON CONTRACT BASIS AT CUCEK FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR W.E.F. 24.11.2023 EXHIBIT R2(G) A TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT LETTER NO.E2/94/2022/H.EDN DATED 21.02.2023 //TRUE COPY// SD/-
P.S. TO JUDGE