IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
OP No. 33630 of 2002(C)
1. C.J.BENNY, S/O.C.C.JOSEPH, AGED 33,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. COCHIN UNIVERSITIES OF SCIENCE AND
... Respondent
2. SAJEEV K.P., GARDENER, CENTRE FOR
3. ALIKUNJU P.K., GARDENER, GUEST HOUSE,
4. AYISHA, GARDENER, ADMINISTRATIVE
5. HASSAN K.M. GARDENER, SCHOOL OF
For Petitioner :SRI.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN
For Respondent :SRI.S.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR, SC, COCHIN UTY.
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :21/02/2007
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
`````````````````````````````````````
O.P NO.33630 OF 2002
```````````````````````````
Dated this the 21th day of February, 2007
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is a candidate included in the ranklist for the
post of Gardener in the Cochin University of Science and
Technology. It is stated that the university had issued a
notification dated 12/11/92 inviting application for the post of
Gardener and in the selection process that ensued, the petitioner
was included at rank number 3. It is stated that although
reservation is applicable to the appointments in the university
despite the university having made six appointments, the
petitioner despite being rank no.3 belonging to Latin Catholic
(OBC), was not offered appointment. He had lodged a complaint
as per Exhibit P2 which was not responded and as the rank list
which was published on 20/11/2000, with two years validity
period, was expiring on the 19th of November 2002, the petitioner
filed this original petition initially with prayers to call for Exhibits
P1 and P2 and to direct the university to appoint the petitioner as
Gardener with effect from the date when his turn fell due.
OP 33630/2002
: 2 :
Subsequently, on an application made by the petitioner an
amendment was incorporated, praying for quashing the
appointment of the 6th respondent, although no improvement in
the pleadings has been made in support thereof additional
prayer.
2. The first respondent University has filed a statement
and a counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that
when appointment of Gardeners was made, the appointments
were made at point No.94, 95, 96, 98, 99 and 100 in a 100 point
roster, maintained as consolidated one for Class III category of
employees. It is stated that at point No.97, the 6th respondent
was appointed as Overseer Grade III (Civil). It is stated that
she was included in the ranklist prepared by the University for
the post of Overseer and when the turn at point No.97 came,
there was a regular vacancy available and thus the 6th respondent
was appointed. Affidavits have also been filed by the 6th
respondent explaining the background in which she was
appointed and she seeks to have her appointment upheld by this
court. A reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner. In the
OP 33630/2002
: 3 :
reply affidavit so filed, the petitioner has found fault with the
University in appointing the 6th respondent at point No.97 of the
roster.
3. As far as the pleadings of the petitioner as contained
in the original petition and the reply affidavit is concerned, the
objection that is raised by the petitioner is to the effect that the
University committed an illegality in appointing the 6th respondent
as an Overseer at point no.97 of the roster maintained for the
post of Gardener. According to the petitioner, if point no.97 in
the roster maintained for the post of Gardener was filled up by a
Gardener, that being an open point, it would have gone to rank
no.2, who was accommodated at point No.99 and the petitioner
would have found his place at point no.99. This contention of the
petitioner has been belied by the fact that the university was only
maintaining a common roster for Class III. It is beyond
controversy that the post of Gardener as also the post of
Overseer belong to Grade III. If that be so, the University cannot
be faulted for having appointed the 6th respondent and included
her at point No.97 of the common roster. Therefore, this
OP 33630/2002
: 4 :
contention of the petitioner is only to be rejected.
During the course of the arguments, the petitioner raised a
contention that the 6th respondent was included in the ranklist of
Overseer and that the ranklist was published on 7/7/97 with a
validity period of two years. According to the petitioner although
the 6th respondent commenced service on provisional basis from
1/7/99, during the currency of the ranklist, the regular vacancy
against which she was appointed at point No.97 arose only on
26/11/01 and by that time the ranklist had expired. On this
basis it is contended that the appointment of the 6th respondent
was made after the expiry of the ranklist and therefore the said
appointment is illegal. Counsel for the University and the 6th
respondent rightly points out that such a contention of the
petitioner is not raised in any of the pleadings. Having gone
through the pleadings of the petitioner as contained in the
original petition as also the reply affidavit, I do not see such
contention raised in the pleadings. Counsel for the petitioner
points out that this aspect has been mentioned in a statement
filed by him. The statement filed, without amendment to the
OP 33630/2002
: 5 :
pleadings, cannot be relied on to decide the case. It is settled law
that unless a contention is raised by pleadings with sufficient
particulars, such contentions cannot be taken cognizance of. Such
being the position, I am not inclined to entertain the contention
raised by the counsel for the petitioner, as it is lacking in the
pleadings. In the result, I find no merit in the writ petition and it
is dismissed. No costs.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp