High Court of KeralaWP(C)/18785/2015disposed of

Prakash Kumar v. Institute Of Human Resources Development

2015-11-02Honourable Mr.Justice K.Vinod Chandran6 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015/11TH KARTHIKA, 1937 ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S):

--------------------------

1. PRAKASH KUMAR, AGED 38 YEARS S/O.M.C.PRABHAKARAN NAIR, NEDUVELIL PADINJATTETHIL THUMPAMON THAZHOM (P.O.), MEZHUVELI VILLAGE PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN 689625.

2. MANOJ KUMAR.V, AGED 40 YEARS S/O.VASUDEVAN NAIR, CHITTETHU HOUSE, THONNALLUR PANDALAM, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN 689501.

3. GOPALAN.S, AGED 42 YEARS S/O.SANKARAN, PLAVILAYIL HOUSE, VADAKKADATHU KAAVU ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA.

4. ARUN.K, AGED 34 YEARS S/O.V.N.KARUNAKARAN, ARUN NIVAS, MALAMELKARA ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN 691573.

5. PRASANNAKUMAR P.K., AGED 42 YEARS S/O.KUNJUPILLA P.G., PALAKKAL VEEDU, VAZHAMUTTAM EAST MALLASSERY, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN 689646.

6. SREEJA KRISHNAN, AGED 43 YEARS W/O.K.K.HARI, GIRISRINGAM, ANANDAPALLI PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN 691525.

BY ADVS.SRI.K.S.BHARATHAN B.C MENON SMT.S.ANJUSHA CONTD .. 2..

.. 2 ..

RESPONDENT(S):

----------------------------

1. INSTITUTE OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT PRAJO'E TOWERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN 695014, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.

2. COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING ADOOR, MANAKKALA (P.O.), ADOOR PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN 691551 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL.

3. THE PRINCIPAL COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, ADOOR, MANAKKALA (P.O.) ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN 691551.

R. BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED R BY SRI.V.A.MOHAMMED, SC, IHRD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-11-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXHIBIT-P1: TRUE COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 16.09.2014.

EXHIBIT-P2: TRUE COPY OF THE NEWSPAPER REPORT PUBLISHED IN MNGALAM DAILY DATED 17.09.2014.

EXHIBIT-P3: TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 29.04.2014.

EXHIBIT-P4: TRUE COPY OF THE REQUISITION MADE FOR THE POST OF WORKSHOP INSTRUCTOR/DEMONSTRATOR DATED 13.04.2015. EXHIBIT-P4(A): TRUE COPY OF THE REQUISITION MADE FOR THE POST OF TRADESMAN DATED 13.04.2015.

EXHIBIT-P4(B): TRUE COPY OF THE REQUISITION MADE FOR THE POST OF WORKSHOP INSTRUCTOR IN ELECTRONICS DATED 13.04.2015. EXHIBIT-P4(C): TRUE COPY OF THE REQUISITION MADE FOR THE POST OF TRADESMAN IN ELECTRONICS DATED 13.04.2015.

EXHIBIT-P5: TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 17.09.2014.

EXHIBIT-P6: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 19.12.2014.

EXHIBIT-P7: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 09.01.2015.

EXHIBIT-P8: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 23.07.2014. EXHIBIT-P9: TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 15.06.2015.

EXHIBIT-P10: TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C) NO.12036/2015 DATED 10.04.2015. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS ANNEXURE R1(A) COPY OF THE FORM OF STATEMENT // TRUE COPY // P.A TO JUDGE.

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

===================== ====================== Dated this the 2nd day of November, 2015

J U D G M E N T

The petitioners were engaged as contract support staff in the colleges of the 1st respondent, specifically the 3rd respondent, on yearly basis after issuing notification and conducting a selection from the applicants. The petitioners admittedly had been engaged only on contract for an year. The mere fact that they were continued every year on they being found eligible to be selected under the successive notifications, would not confer any right on them to be continued as such.

2. This time, when the contracts expired, the 1st respondent thought it fit to make a request to the Employment Exchange to send a list of candidates so as to make the contract

engagement from those candidates registered in the Employment Exchange. The 1st respondent being a Society wholly controlled by the State, it was only proper that such a decision was taken under the The Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959.

3. However the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent was directed to find out whether they had sufficient candidates from the Employment Exchange. The learned Standing Counsel on instructions submits that there has been sufficient names forwarded from the Employment Exchange for all the posts, in which, such engagement is contemplated, except two posts of Workshop Instructor in Mechanical Engineering, which the petitioners 1 and 2 are said to be eligible to be appointed; on the basis of the interview conducted provisionally on orders of this Court. In such circumstance, such appointment shall be granted, but however subject to the

Employment Exchange sending candidates in the successive years.

The writ petition hence would stand disposed of with the above observations.

Sd/- K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE SB/2/11/2015 // true copy // P.A to Judge.