Jessy C Vs. the Registrar - Court Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE31T DAY OF JANUARY201411TH MAGHA, 1935 WP(C).No. 1061 of 2014 (G) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------- JESSY C D/O. KRISHNANA C., AGED35YEARS, RESIDING AT 'GULSHAN' TAAR ROAD, MUNDAYAD, KANNUR - 670 597. BY ADV. SRI.V.RAMKUMAR NAMBIAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. THE REGISTRAR KANNUR UNIVERSITY, KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 001.

2. THE DIRECTOR, INDIAN INSTITUTE OF HANDLOOM TECHNOLOGY, KANNUR UNIVERSITY,THOTTADA KANNUR - 670 001.

3. DRISHYA V.C. AKSHARA, MACHERY, P.O. MOWANCHERRY KANNUR - 670 613. R1 BY SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED, SC, KANNUR UNIVERSITY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON3101-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 1061 of 2014 (G) --------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS -------------------------- EXHIBIT-P1-TRUE COPY OF THE POST GRADUATE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE KNITWEAR FASHION INSTITUTE. EXHIBIT-P2-TRUE COPY OF THE COURSE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE OBTAINED FROM THE MADURAI KAMARAJ UNIVERSITY. EXHIBIT-P3-TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER

OF THE PETITIONER DATED2307/2003 ISSUED BYT THE REGISTRAR, KANNUR UNIVERSITY. EXHIBIT-P4-TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED0711/2013 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR (ACADEMIC) ON BEHALF OF THE IST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT-P5-TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER

DATED0312/2013 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR (ACADEMIC) FOR THE REGISTRAR, KANNUR UNIVERSITY. EXHIBIT-P6-TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER

OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED2612/2013. EXHIBIT-P7-TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM WHICH APPEARED IN THE MATHRUBHUMI DAIILY DATED2012/2013. EXHIBIT-P8-TRUE COPY OF THE LEAVE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT-P9-TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER

/COMMUNICATION DATED3112/2013 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR (ACADEMIC) ON BEHALF OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE COVER. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. dlk C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J.

------------------------------------------------- W.P.(c) No. 1061 OF2014G ------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE31t DAY OF JANUARY, 2014.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner was appointed as Director of the Community College of Fashion Designing conducted by the 1st respondent University, on contract basis, for a period of one year, by virtue of Ext.P3 order dated 23-07-2003. The contract appointment was thereafter renewed periodically from time to time. Exhibit P6 is the latest order wherein the petitioner was re-engaged with effect from 01-11-2013 till alternate arrangement is made by the University, based on monthly consolidated honorarium. While the petitioner was continuing on the basis of Ext.P6, the University had published Ext.P7 notification inviting eligible candidates for attending interview to the post of 'Course Director'. The petitioner had attended the interview along with the 3rd respondent, on 20-12-2013. Thereafter on 06-01-2014 when the petitioner had approached the institute to submit leave W.P.(c) No. 1061/2014 -2- application, Ext.P9 was served intimating that her service was terminated with effect from 31-12-2013. Petitioner is challenging termination of the service, contending various grounds. Main contention is that there was no reason for termination of service, after permitting the petitioner to continue as Director of the college for a period more than 10 years. Exhibit P9 is assailed as a non-speaking order issued without affording any opportunity to the petitioner to object without affording her an opportunity of personal hearing. The appointment of the 3rd respondent as 'Course Director' is also assailed as a tainted action motivated by malafides.

2. In a statement filed on behalf of the 1st respondent it is mentioned that, the petitioner was appointed as 'Course Coordinator' with effect from 01-08-2003 for a period of one year, purely on temporary basis. The engagement was made because of the fact that candidates having necessary qualification were not available, despite interview conducted by the University. Later, designation of 'Course W.P.(c) No. 1061/2014 -3- Coordinator' was changed as 'Course Director' and the petitioner was allowed to continue on contract basis, with break in service in every year, on expiry of the annual contracts. Under the above mentioned circumstances, University had notified interview for appointment to the post of 'Course Director' by issuing notification on 11-12- 2013. Eventhough the petitioner had attended the interview conducted on 20-12-2013, she was not holding the requisite qualifications as notified by the University. Under such circumstances, the service of the petitioner as 'Course Director' was terminated through Ext.P9. Since it is evident that the petitioner was appointed only on contract basis till substitute arrangement is made by the University, the termination cannot be assailed, is the contention.

3. Fact that the petitioner was continuing on the basis of yearly contract which was renewed periodically after break, is not disputed. It is evident from Ext.P6 that the extension of the contract was until alternate arrangement is made. There is evidence to effect that the W.P.(c) No. 1061/2014 -4- University had notified the post and conducted selection for appointment to the post of Course Director in which the petitioner had also participated. By virtue of the contract appointments, the petitioner had not acquired any right to claim continuance in the post. The University cannot be prevented from making appointment either on regular or provisional basis, after notifying the post and after conducting interview. The contract appointment of the petitioner is liable to be terminated on such situation. Therefore, challenge against the termination of service of the petitioner does not warrants interference. However, it is pertinent to note that the petitioner has not challenged the selection process conducted based on Ext.P7 notification on any specific ground, apart from a vague allegation of malafides raised. If the petitioner has got any case that selection of the 3rd respondent was illegal or that the petitioner was a better candidate who ought to have been appointed, it is for the petitioner to agitate the issue based on materials, if any available. W.P.(c) No. 1061/2014 -5- 4. Under the above mentioned circumstances this writ petition is dismissed, reserving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the selection process through which the 3rd respondent was appointed, if so advised, in appropriate proceedings. Sd/- C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. AMG True copy P.A to Judge