Manoj J And Ors vs State Of Kerala And Ors

The petitioners, who are Assistant Engineers and Assistant Executive Engineers working under the Kerala Water Authority, are aggrieved by non-

allotment of seats for Post-Graduation Courses set apart for the sponsored employees of Kerala Water Authority in the College of Engineering,

Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioners seek the following reliefs:-

“i) To issue a writ of certiorari quashing Ext.P9 allotment list to the extent to which it does not allot 2 seats for M.Tech in Environmental

Engineering to the petitioner nos.3 and 5 and for M.Tech in Structural Engineering to the petitioner no.2 in the College of Engineering

Thiruvananthapuram under the sponsored candidates' quota working in the Kerala Water Authority;

ii) To issue a writ of certiorari quashing Ext.P10 as unjust, illegal and arbitrary;

iii) To declare that the petitioners together are entitled to get admission for 5 seats of M.Tech in total, 3 in the College of Engineering,

Thiruvananthapuram and 2 in Government Engineering college, Thrissur giving the benefit of Ext.P1 and Ext.P1(a) G.O.s respectively

under the sponsored candidates' quota working in the Kerala Water Authority.

iv) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the first and second respondents to revoke the allotments of seats granted by denying the seats

which are due to the petitioners on account of Ext.P1;

v) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the first and second respondents to rework Ext.P9 and to allot 5 seats of M.Tech in total, 3 in the

College of Engineering, Thiruvananthapuram and 2 in Government Engineering College, Thrissur giving the benefit of Ext.P1 and

Ext.P1(a) G.O.s respectively under the sponsored candidates' quota working in the Kerala Water Authority.â€​

The petitioners state that the 1st and 4th petitioner are working as Assistant Engineers and petitioners 2, 3 and 5 are working as Assistant Executive

Officers under the Kerala Water Authority(KWA). According to the petitioners, each year a maximum of 5 candidates are sponsored by the KWA

for undergoing Post-Graduate studies in Engineering. In the College of Engineering, Thiruvananthapuram (CET), two seats of M.Tech are set apart in

the branch of Environmental Engineering and one seat in the branch of Structural Engineering. In the Government Engineering College, Thrissur, two

seats are set apart in the branch of Environmental Engineering.

The petitioners state that the three seats in CET were set apart pursuant to Ext.P1 Government of Kerala, Public Health Engineering Department

proceedings. Ext.P1 was issued before the formation of KWA, when the functions now discharged by the KWA were being discharged by Public

Health Engineering Department of the Government of Kerala. The two seats in Government Engineering College, Thrissur were allocated to KWA

pursuant to Ext.P1(a) Government Order dated 28.12.2007.

The petitioners applied for sponsorship to pursue the Post Graduation Course for the years 2020â€"'22. The KWA issued Exts.P2 to P6 sponsorship

certificates in favour of the petitioners. The KWA forwarded Ext.P7 letter also to the 2nd respondent-Director of Technical Education along with a list

of candidates who are selected for admission to M.Tech Course in Civil Engineering for the years 2020â€"'22 under the sponsorship quota of the

KWA. The name of the petitioners are included in Ext.P7. The petitioners' names were included in Ext.P8 rank list also.

However, to the surprise of the petitioners, in the first allotment list made by the 2nd respondent for admission made on 23.10.2020, petitioners 2, 3

and 5 were denied allotments and only petitioners 1 and 4 were allotted seats in Government Engineering College, Thrissur. Ext.P9 allotment list is

challenged by the petitioners. On enquiry, the petitioners learnt that no allotment was made in respect of the three seats in CET on the ground that

Ext.P1 proceedings of the Government of the year 1977 was with respect to reserving seats for candidates working in the Public Health Engineering

Department and would not apply to employees working under the KWA.

The petitioners would submit that KWA came into existence in the year 1986 under the Kerala Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1986. All the

benefits available to the employees of the Public Health Engineering Department were extended to the employees recruited/deputed in the Kerala

Water Authority. Till the year 2019, the 2nd respondent was allotting seats to the sponsored candidates of the KWA without any objection, as is

evidenced by Exts.P11 and P12. After adopting and following Ext.P1 proceedings from 1977 to 2019, the 2nd respondent is estopped from denying the

applicability of the same to the Kerala Water Authority. In the circumstances, Exts.P9 and P10 are liable to be quashed and the petitioners are entitled

to get admission for five seats of M.Tech, three in the CET and two in the Government Engineering College, Thrissur.

The 2nd respondent resisted the writ petition filing a statement. The 2nd respondent stated that admission to M. Tech Courses are governed by the

prospectus approved by the Government of Kerala. In Annexure-1 Prospectus, there is no provision for reservation for any sponsored candidates.

Clause VIII(g) of the prospectus states that sponsored candidates, if any, will be admitted as per the relevant Government Orders. The 2nd

respondent stated that Ext.P1 is not a Government Order prescribing reservation to Engineers of the Public Health Engineering Department/KWA.

Ext.P1 is an order which permits the employees of erstwhile Public Health Engineering Department to avail the benefit of the Government Order and

treat such period of studies as deputation. It only means that if got selected, such candidates will be treated as on duty during the period of studies and

training and salary will be paid to them treating them as on deputation.

According to the 2nd respondent, Ext.P1 only means that if employees of Public Health Engineering Department get sponsored for admission on

their merits for M.Tech Course at CET in Environmental or Structural Engineering Courses, their studies can be treated as deputation for service

benefits and nothing beyond that. The 2nd respondent would further contend that if the claim of the petitioners is allowed, the total reservation for

sponsored candidates would come to 22% which when added to statutory/special reservations, would make the total reservation 67%.

The 2nd respondent further pointed out that working professionals are getting opportunity to undergo their PG studies as an evening M.Tech

programme. At present, most of the seats in the evening M. Tech programmes are vacant due to insufficient applications. Admission for M.Tech

courses in each academic year is distinct and is governed by the prospectus approved by the Government for that year. The 2nd respondent conceded

that reservations which were granted on the basis of Ext.P1 during the previous academic years were on a wrong understanding of Ext.P1.

The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the employees of the KWA were enjoying the benefit of reservation of five seats in M.Tech

pursuant to the orders issued by the Government from 1977 to 2019. Now, by Ext.P10 Order, reservation has been reduced and confined to 2 seats.

As the KWA was formed for the purpose of discharging the functions of Public Health Engineering Department, the benefit of reservation provided to

the erstwhile PHED was made available to employees of KWA. This was an accepted practice and continued for a considerably long time since the

year 1977.

Relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in M.P. Oil Extraction and another v. State of M.P. and others [(1997) 7 SCC 592], the

learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the doctrine of long past practice would come into play in the case of the petitioners and the

respondents are compellable to follow a practice continued for considerably long period. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgment

of the Apex Court in M.G.B. Gramin Bank v. Chakrawarti Singh [AIR 2013 SC 3365] and the judgment in Manuelsons Hotels Private Limited (M/s.)

v. State of Kerala and others [2016 (3) KHC 206]. The learned counsel for the petitioners also relied on Ext.P17 to point out that sponsorship of

candidates are contemplated by the prospectus.

The learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, argued that Ext.P1 envisages only deputation of employees and does not contemplate any

reservation in educational institutions. Ext.P1 would only show that if the employees of PHED get admission to the said educational institutions on their

own, they can be deputed for studies. The learned Government pleader further argued that reservation in higher educational institutions can be made

only by the Department of Higher Education and not by any other Department. The ranked list given by the KWA cannot be treated as allotment

letters. The learned Government pleader, relying on the judgments of the Apex Court in Rajasthan State Industrial Development and others v. Subhash

Sindhi Cooperative Housing Society Jaipur and others [(2013) 5 SCC 427] and Bondu Ramaswamy and others v. Bangalore Development Authority

and others [(2010) 7 SCC 129] argued that even if an error is committed by the government and continued for some time, such error cannot be carried

on indefinitely. The petitioners, by no stretch of imagination, can have a right founded on an error committed by the respondents. 13. Heard learned

counsel for the petitioners and learned Government pleader appearing for respondents.

The specific case of the petitioners is that three seats are reserved for employees of PHED/KWA in the CET and two seats are reserved in

Government Engineering College, Thrissur. To establish this point, the petitioners rely on Ext.P1 order of the Public Health Engineering Department

issued in the year 1977. A plain reading of Ext.P1 would show that the said Government Order provides only deputation of employees of Public

Health Engineering Department for higher studies. It does not speak of or create reservation of seats in the College of Engineering

Thiruvananthapuram.

Furthermore, the specific stand of the Government of Kerala is that as of now any reservation/quota in courses of higher education can be made

only by the Higher Education Department. It is also an admitted position that the prospectus for admission does not contemplate such quota or

reservation for KWA employees in five seats, as claimed by the petitioners. If the practice of allotting employees of KWA to the CET,

Thiruvananthapuram was in vogue during earlier years, it can only be treated as an erroneous practice. Such an error committed by the Authorities

cannot vest a corresponding right on the petitioners under the doctrine of long past practice or under the doctrine of estoppel.

This Court therefore finds that the writ petition filed by the petitioners is without any merit and it is therefore dismissed. It is made clear that

respondents 2 and 3 will be at liberty to pursue their claim for allotment in Government Engineering College, Thrissur in accordance with law, if they

are otherwise eligible in all respects.