Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

O.V. JAYASREE versus MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


O.V. JAYASREE v. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY - WP(C) No. 19792 of 2006(F) [2007] RD-KL 5211 (12 March 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 19792 of 2006(F)

1. O.V. JAYASREE,
... Petitioner

2. BINCY MATHEW,

3. V.G. RAJEEV,

Vs

1. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY,
... Respondent

2. THE DIRECTOR,

For Petitioner :SRI.K.JAJU BABU

For Respondent :SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY

The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER

Dated :12/03/2007

O R D E R

A.K. BASHEER, J.

W.P.(C). Nos. 19792, 19988, 19989, 19990, 29157 & 30149 OF 2006

Dated this the 12th day of March, 2007



J U D G M E N T

Petitioners in these writ petitions, except the petitioners in W.P.(C). Nos. 29157 & 30149/06, had been working in various categories of posts in Mahatma Gandhi University. It is the admitted position that all of them were working on a provisional basis. It is also beyond controversy that all of them have put in more than 10 years of service.

2. W.P.(C). No. 19792/06 was filed challenging Ext.P8 order issued by the University terminating the service of the petitioners therein. Shortly thereafter, the other writ petitions namely W.P.(C). Nos. 19988, 19989, 19990 were filed by other similarly placed employees apprehending that they were also likely to meet the same fate as that of the petitioners in W.P.(C). No. 19792/06.

3. W.P.(C). Nos. 29157 & 30149 of 2006 are at the instance of those who are seeking employment in the University. Their grievance is that the University is pulling out a notification WPC NOS. 19792/06 & CONN. CASES Page numbers of the year 1998 from its dusty cupboard and revitalizing it in order to give appointment to some of the provisional employees like the petitioners in the other writ petitions . It is contended that the attempt is to make a mockery of selection on the strength of the above notification. It is pointed out that the University is not justified in making appointments on the strength of the said notification of the year 1998 and that too, when it was apparently made clear in the notification itself that the period of appointment was for one year. Anyhow, I do not propose to deal with the above contention raised by the petitioners in these two writ petitions and those raised by the petitioners in the other writ petitions mentioned earlier in view of the order I propose to pass in these cases.

4. It is on record that the provisional employees referred to above, have been working in the University for more than a decade. Their grievance is that the applications submitted by some of them pursuant to 1998 notification had not been considered by the University till date. If selection had been held at that time, some of them would have got appointment. It is contended by the petitioners that the service rendered by them WPC NOS. 19792/06 & CONN. CASES Page numbers for a decade and more may not be overlooked. They may not get another employment at this stage. It was for that sole reason that the petitioners had made a request to the University to regularise their service. Though some of the petitioners were being paid monthly salary, it is admitted that others were engaged on daily wage basis. Yet again, I refrain from making any comment on the above and other contentions at this stage because of the intervening developments.

5. Learned Standing Counsel for the University has brought to my notice that the Syndicate at its meeting held on February 2, 2007, has taken a decision to appoint 20 candidates including the petitioners in W.P.(C). Nos. 19792 and other writ petitions on daily wage basis for 3 months with effect from February 15, 2007 at "corresponding Government rates fixed for each post." In view of the above facts and circumstances, these writ petitions are closed. The University must redress the heart burn of the petitioners in W.P.(C). Nos. 19792, 19988, 19989, 19990 of 2006 expeditiously. Similarly, the anxiety and concern of the job seekers should also be considered. There is no doubt that WPC NOS. 19792/06 & CONN. CASES Page numbers the University can redress the grievances of these two categories of petitioners, if some thought is given to their predicament. The University shall take an appropriate decision in the matter as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

A.K. BASHEER, JUDGE

vps WPC NOS. 19792/06 & CONN. CASES Page numbers

KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE

OP NO.

JUDGMENT

21st DECEMBER, 2006


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.