K.S. Jaya Kumar vs Kerala Agricultural University

Mohammed Nias C. P. , J.

This writ petition is filed by an elected member of the General Council of the Kerala Agricultural University, who is also a Section Officer in the Directorate of Physical Plant, Vellanikkara, under the University. The petitioner contends that on 8.2.2016, the University, as per Ext.P2 order, decided to form a Committee for reporting the various vacancies for appointments in the University and by Ext.P3 dated 22.12.2016, a meeting was convened by the committee and decided to report the vacancies to the PSC. In the year 2018, the Government issued Ext.P7 intimation stating that a study team under the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department (P&ARD) would visit the University, and they prepared Ext.P8 work study report of the University for taking further action. The petitioner states that on 12.9.2023, the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department issued Ext.P10 communication to report the existing vacancies to the PSC. While so, the Vice Chancellor in charge issued Ext.P11 communication dated 10.10.2023 directing another work study to be conducted. This, according to the petitioner, is wrong as the first report was never placed before the General Council of the University and without considering the first report Ext.P8, an attempt to prepare another study report, which will have the effect of abolishing a large number of posts in the non-teaching cadre of the University. Accordingly, challenging the order constituting a Committee to prepare a work-study again, this writ petition is filed.

The State has filed a counter opposing the writ petition, contending that the petitioner has no locus at all to file the writ petition as he cannot be said to be a person legally aggrieved, and none of his rights are affected by any action of the University.

On going through the writ petition and the prayers sought, it is clear that by Ext.P11, the Vice Chancellor in charge had directed a work-study to be done after the implementation of the e-office by NIC as a fresh workload reassessment is required. The earlier report was prepared years before, and therefore the Vice Chancellor thought it fit that a review is needed after the implementation of the e-office by the NIC. There is no case for the petitioner that either of the reports is accepted or that there is any illegality in conducting a second work study. The petitioner cannot be said to be legally aggrieved by any of the actions of the University. He also does not have any locus to challenge the action of the University, which directed to conduct a work-study, particularly, after the introduction of the e-office by the NIC. An action on the part of the University to conduct a further study/assessment cannot be termed illegal for the petitioner to maintain a writ petition. Holding that the petitioner has no locus and that he cannot be said to be legally aggrieved, the writ petition is dismissed.