Kannur University vs Achuthanandan Kuniyil, Public Relations and Nizar K.P.

K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.—The 1st respondent in the Writ Petition, Kannur University, is the appellant. The Writ Petition was filed by the 1st respondent herein.

The brief facts of the case are the following:

The 1st respondent/writ petitioner joined Calicut University as Assistant Grade-II on 4.5.1995. In due course, he was promoted as Selection Grade Assistant. In 1996, carving out some area of the Calicut University, the Kannur University was formed. The employees of the Calicut University were given right to opt to go to Kannur University. The 1st respondent/writ petitioner opted and he was transferred to Kannur University as per Ext.P1 order dated 31.10.1998, while he was working as Selection Grade Assistant. After joining the new University, he was promoted as Section Officer in 2001.

The Government sanctioned the creation of various posts, including one post of Public Relations Officer (PRO), in the Kannur University, as per Ext.P2 communication dated 17.11.2000. But, the Government in the said communication stipulated that those posts shall be filled up by surplus hands working in the Calicut University. Since no one was available in the Calicut University, who was qualified and willing to come over as PRO, the Kannur University invited options from among its employees for appointment to the said post. The 1st respondent/writ petitioner opted and he was selected for the post. Initially, he was given additional charge of the post of PRO by Ext.P5. Still later, by Ext.P6 he was given full charge, till the post was regularly filled up.

While so, the Syndicate of the University prescribed the qualifications and method of appointment to the post of PRO in variation of the qualifications prescribed by it earlier. Later, the University took steps to fill up the posts in accordance with the qualifications so prescribed and Ext.P10 notification was issued. It is a composite notification inviting applications for other posts also. In the meantime, the petitioner has filed several representations claiming regularisation in the post of PRO. He also pointed out the precedent of regularising certain persons in certain other posts and prayed the said precedent may be followed in his case also. But, when the University went ahead with direct recruitment proposed under Ext.P10, the Writ Petition was filed by the 1st respondent, challenging Ext.P10 to the extent it invites application to the post of PRO. He also sought a declaration that his appointment to the post of PRO be treated as regular. The University filed a counter affidavit resisting the prayers in the Writ Petition. It was contended that since there was no qualified hands in Calicut University to be posted as PRO, the University decided to go for direct recruitment.

The learned Single Judge, after hearing both sides, quashed Ext.P10 and also directed the University to consider the representations filed by the 1st respondent for regularisation. The learned Single Judge found that the University could have filled up the post of PRO only by deployment from the Calicut University and that too as per the qualifications prescribed in Ext.P3 circular. If any modification is to be made of the qualifications, the same can be done only by framing Ordinance, as provided u/s 40 of the Kannur University Act. The learned Judge also found that as per Ext.P2, sanction was given for creation of the post of PRO, subject to certain conditions and the University is bound to follow those conditions while filling up of those posts. Based on those findings, Ext.P10 was quashed.

The University appeals against the above judgment, pointing out that since there are no qualified hands in Calicut University for posting as PRO, the condition imposed by the Government in Ext.P2 no longer survives. They can go for direct recruitment. Qualifications in Ext.P3 was those fixed by the syndicate and therefore, by another resolution the syndicate can modify those qualifications. Therefore, there is nothing wrong with Ext.P10, it is submitted. The University also pointed out that the 1st respondent''s appointment as PRO being a temporary arrangement, pending regular appointment, he cannot claim regularisation in service. Such a procedure of regularisation of a temporary hand is not contemplated under the Kannur University Act or the statues framed thereunder. So, the University prayed for allowing the appeal.

We heard the learned Counsel on both sides. The learned Counsel for the 1st respondent supported the impugned judgment. Going by the facts disclosed, we are of the view that the decision of the learned Single Judge to quash Ext.P10 to the extent it concerns Public Relations Officer, has to be upheld. Various posts as per Ext.P2 were sanctioned subject to a condition that they have to be filled up by the excess hands from the Calicut University. If the post cannot be filled up by the said method, the University have to move the Government and get its sanction or filling up the post by other methods. Further, the University can fill up the post on a regular basis, only, after the qualifications and method of appointment to that post are prescribed by Ordinance. It is common ground that so far Ordinance has not been framed for the said purpose. The proposal is still pending before the Chancellor for approval. Therefore, the University could not have taken steps to fill up the post of PRO on a regular basis.

For the above reasons, the quashing of Ext.P10 to the extent it concerns the post of PRO is upheld. No rule, order, statute or Ordinance has been brought to our notice, which enables the 1st respondent to claim regulation in the post of PRO. In the absence of a legal right in the 1st respondent and a corresponding duty in the University, this Court is not justified in directing the University to consider the claim of the 1st respondent/writ petitioner for regularisation. The representations Exts.P7, P8, P9 and P9(a) contained requests for regularisation. Therefore, the learned Judge should not have asked the University to consider those representations. So, the direction in the judgment under appeal to consider those representations is vacated. Needless to say, the University is free to take fresh steps in accordance with law to fill up the post of PRO. Till such time, the 1st respondent shall be retained as PRO on temporary basis, during good conduct, retaining his lien in the post of Assistant Registrar.

The Writ Appeal is disposed of as above.