IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 17755 of 2010(T)
1. SURENDRAN K.V.,
... Petitioner
2. SHILAJA U.S.,
3. RAGINI E.G.,
4. SUNITHA M.P.,
5. GEETHAKUMARI M.S.,
6. JAYANTHI C.S.,
7. ANITHA N.K.,
8. ANITHA P.S.,
9. GEETHA M.,
10. SATHI O.V.,
11. SOBHANA P.B.,
12. RADHAMANI P.D.,
13. RATNAVALLI SURENDRAN,
14. USHA ASOKAN,
15. KOMALAM P.K.,
16. ASWATHY CHANDRAN,
17. VALSALAKUMARI M.S.,
18. RADHAMANI V.V.,
19. USHA RAVI,
Vs
1. KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY,
... Respondent
2. THE REGISTRAR,
3. THE ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR AND HEAD,
4. THE VICE CHANCELLOR,
For Petitioner :SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN
For Respondent :SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :06/10/2010
O R D E R
K.T.SANKARAN, J.
------------------------------------------
W.P.(C).Nos.17755,19402,23197 & 24387 of 2010
------------------------------------------
th
Dated this the 6 day of October, 2010
JUDGMENT
Since these Writ Petitions are similar in
nature, the Writ Petitions are disposed of by a
common judgment.
The petitioners in W.P.(C) No.24387 of 2010
state that they are working as trainees under the
Entrepreneurship training under a project called
“Agro Biotechnology Agency for Rural Employment
Development” (ABARD). The project was being
implemented with the help of three local
panchayaths in and around the Campus of Kerala
Agricultural University at Mannuthy, Thrissur
District. It is stated that about 150 trainees
were selected from the three panchayath areas and
they were given training for six months. As per
Ext.P2 order dated 28.4.2006 passed by the
Executive Committee of Kerala Agricultural
University, a Sub Committee was constituted to
W.P.(C).Nos.17755,19402,
23197 & 24387 of 2010 2
study the feasibility of absorption of ABARD
trainees as casual labourers in the Kerala
Agricultural University. The decision taken by the
Sub Committee is produced as Ext.P3. Clause (1) in
Ext.P3 reads as follows:
“After detailed deliberations the following
decisions were taken .
1) All the 60 ABARD Trainees may be enrolled as
Casual labourers in a phased manner at
Mannuthy Campus and Pooled at University
Livestock Farm & Fodder Research Development
Schme, Mannuthy.”
2. The grievance of the petitioners is that
they were not absorbed.
3. The reliefs prayed for by the petitioners in
the Writ Petition are the following:
“i) To issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the
respondents to implement Exhibit P3 and
enroll the petitioners as Casual labourers
under the 1st respondent University.
ii) To issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the
respondents to consider and pass orders on
W.P.(C).Nos.17755,19402,
23197 & 24387 of 2010 3
Exhibits P4 and P5 representations within a
reasonable time limit as this Hon’ble Court
may be pleased to fix.
iii) To issue such other writs, orders or
directions as this Hon’ble Court may deem
fit and proper in the circumstances of the
case.”
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for
the petitioners that for the time being, the
petitioners confine their relief to relief No.(ii),
reserving their right to pursue the other reliefs
at the appropriate stage.
5. The petitioners in WP(C) No.23197/2010 and
17755 of 2010 are daily rated workers at Cashew
Research Station, Madakkathara of the first
respondent University. They state that they have
been working as daily rated workers since 1999 and
they have crossed the age for seeking employment
elsewhere. It is also stated that the petitioners
were performing the duties of regular employees.
They have got the necessary skill and training for
W.P.(C).Nos.17755,19402,
23197 & 24387 of 2010 4
undertaking the work necessary for the Cashew
Research Station or other centres of the
University. The grievance put forward by the
petitioners in these two Writ Petitions is that
ignoring the fact that the petitioners were
employed for long as daily rated workers, the
University took steps to appoint casual labourers
from among the persons who were trained by ABARD.
The petitioners in these two Writ Petitions also
claimed similar status as ABARD trainees. They
submitted Ext.P3 representation to the Vice
Chancellor of the University requesting to appoint
them as casual labourers along with the ABARD
trainees. The representations submitted by the
petitioners in these two Writ Petitions are
pending.
6. In Writ Petition 19402/2010, the first
petitioner is Kerala Agricultural University Labour
Association, Pookkode and the second petitioner is
W.P.(C).Nos.17755,19402,
23197 & 24387 of 2010 5
the daily wage worker in the Instructional Farm,
Pookode, run by the Kerala Agricultural University.
The grievance of the petitioners in WP(c)
No.19402/2010 is that though the persons like the
second petitioner were employed as daily rated
workers for quite long time, they were not absorbed
in service by the University. Instead, the
University decided to recruit fresh casual
labourers. The first petitioner in WP(C) No.19402
of 2010 submitted Ext.P3 representation dated
14.6.2010 before the Vice Chancellor and Registrar
of the University. Ext.P3 is pending disposal.
7. The petitioners in the aforesaid Writ
Petitions submitted that for the time being, it is
sufficient, if the Vice Chancellor of the
University and if necessary, the Registrar of the
University are directed to consider the
aforementioned representations submitted by the
respective petitioners.
W.P.(C).Nos.17755,19402,
23197 & 24387 of 2010 6
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the
Writ Petitions are disposed of directing the Vice
Chancellor of the University or if necessary by the
Registrar of the University to consider and dispose
of the representations submitted by the
petitioners, after affording the representatives of
the petitioners an opportunity for personal
hearing. A decision shall be taken on the
representations as expeditiously as possible and at
any rate within a period of three months from the
date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.
Writ Petitions are disposed of as above.
It is made clear that I have not considered
the claims put forward by the petitioners on the
merits.
K.T.SANKARAN,
JUDGE
cms