The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for compliance with statutory procedures in making appointments, the authority of the appointing authority, and the legality of ad hoc appointments.

Shanmugam, J.

In all these Original Petitions the petitioners challenge the order of the Registrar of Mahatma Gandhi University sanctioning to terminate all ad hoc appointments of non-teaching staff made by the Directors.

2. The School of Medical Education and the School of Technology and Applied Science are run by M.G. University under a self financing Scheme. These schools commenced functioning during the year 1994 with the Honorary Directors as their head. They have made about 131 appointments for non-teaching staff of the institute on contract basis for one year and in some cases as casual labourers on daily wages. By communication dated 23.9.1996 the Directors of Self Financing Schools were informed that the appointments made to the non-teaching staff were done on ad hoc basis without following the statutory procedures. The University has, therefore, taken a decision to terminate the ad hoc temporary appointments and the Directors were instructed to initiate steps to give notice for terminating all ad hoc appointments of non-teaching staff. At this stage, the Original Petitions have been filed challenging the communication of the University.

3. The M.G. University First Statutes, 1991 deals with the terms and conditions of service of non-teaching staff of the University, under Chapter 4. Chapter 4 is divided into Part I and Part II. Part I deals with the applicability of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, in so far as it may be applicable except to the extent expressly provided for in these statutes. Part II of the Chapter deals with the Constitution of the M.G. University service. R.7 provides for scales of pay, qualification and method of posting. R.8 deals with the recruitment of posts which shall be made on the basis of the recommendations made by the selection committee consisting of Vice-Chancellor as Chairman, Convener of the Standing Committee of the Syndicate on staff and Registrar who shall be the Member-Secretary of the Committee. The Committee may conduct the test as it may deem necessary.

4. Admittedly the posts for which the petitioners are appointed are the posts coming under the Constitution of the M.G. University service and the appointment to this service should be in accordance with Rules 7, 8 and 9. However, in so far as appointments made as not provided under Part II (Regular service) R.2 of Part I states that KSSR are made applicable, where there is no express provision for appointment. Admittedly, there is no provision under University for making temporary or ad hoc appointments. Those appointment should be in accordance with R.9 of KSSR dealing with temporary appointments. This rule also contemplates (a) the appointment should be by the competent authority; (b) the procedure prescribed as per executive orders and notification in reference to employment exchange and reservation availability of posts should be followed. The first proviso to sub-r.(4) of R.9 says that a person appointed under R.9 shall not be allowed to continue in such post for a period not exceeding 180 days.

5. The Directors of School and Medical Education and the School of Technology and Applied Science are under the control of M.G. University. The competent authority to make appointment is selection committee under R.B. The Directors have made appointments outside the scope of R.9 in the sense that appointments were made in many cases for one year and in some cases as daily rate basis. It is not disputed that no procedure whatsoever had been followed in appointing these petitioners in the sense that there was no proper assessment of the vacancies, availability of posts, qualifications for the posts and notification to the Employment Exchange. Thus, the whole appointment are illegal and contrary to the Rules and are made in an arbitrary fashion. The petitioners cannot claim a right on the basis of such appointment.

6. In O.P. No. 15052 of 1996 the petitioners have furnished Ext. P3 appointment order wherein, in