Surendran K.V. and Others vs Kerala Agricultural University, The Registrar and The Vice Chancellor

T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.—The Petitioners are aggrieved by the conditions contained in Exhibit P5 order whereby it is specified that persons like the Petitioners will have to fulfill certain other qualifications for appointment as casual workers.

This is a case where the Petitioners are working as casual workers on a daily wage basis from 1999 at Cashew Research Station, Madakkathara of the 1st Respondent-University. They have crossed the age for seeking employment elsewhere. According to them, they are trained workers in the University.

Seeking relaxation of age and certain other benefits at the time of appointment as casual workers, the Petitioners approached this Court earlier and the Writ Petition was disposed of by Exhibit P4(A) judgment and accordingly Exhibit P5 order has been passed. It is specified therein that they will have to satisfy other criteria and they would be granted relaxation.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that in like situation in respect of another batch of trainees, the University has not insisted for any physical test or screening test and therefore the action is discriminatory. My attention is invited to Exhibit P3 order passed by the University in the light of the judgment in W.P.(C) No. 33170/2009.

The learned Standing Counsel for the University explained that Exhibit P3 concerns Attic/ABARD trainees and with regard to them also there will be a selection process. It is further pointed out that the ABARD trainees had already undergone a selection process prior to their appointment as Attic/ABARD trainees whereas the Petitioners have not undergone any selection process prior to their engagement. It is therefore submitted that there is no discrimination as far as the Petitioners are concerned.

Going by paragraph No. 6 of the counter affidavit filed by the University, the Petitioners have been granted age relaxation and due weight age. In paragraph No. 8 of the counter affidavit it is further pointed out that the Petitioners will be granted exemption from the screening test apart from weight age and age relaxation at the time of casual labour recruitment process as and when conducted at the station as decided by the Executive Committee. But, they have to undergo skill test and interview along with other candidates.

In that view of the matter, I do not find any thing wrong in the University insisting for skill test and interview as the Petitioners have already been granted various benefits like age relaxation, exemption from screening test, etc. Evidently, the ABARD workers are persons who had undergone a selection process and they will also be undergoing a further selection process as evident from Exhibit P3. Therefore, there is no element of discrimination as pointed out by the Petitioners. In that view of the matter, I do not find any reason to interfere with Exhibit P5 order and the Writ Petition is disposed of in the light of the averments contained in the counter affidavit. No costs.