The obligation of the University, as an entity under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, to adhere to the principle of fairness in action and give preference to candidates from the current rank list for future appointments to temporary posts of University Assistants.

JUDGMENT :

A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.

1. The 1st petitioner in W.P.(C).No.21522/2019 is the appellant before us, aggrieved by the judgment dated 8.12.2020 of the learned Single Judge dismissing his Writ Petition. The brief facts necessary for a disposal of this Writ Appeal are as follows:

2. The appellant was included in the rank list prepared by the Kerala Public Service Commission [hereinafter referred to as the “PSC”] for appointment to the post of University Assistant in the various Universities in Kerala. In the Writ Petition, it was his case that apart from the 211 posts of University Assistants that were sanctioned in the Cochin University of Science and Technology [hereinafter referred to as the “University”], there were 42 temporary posts of University Assistants created by the University at various points in time, pursuant to resolutions of the Syndicate of the University, for meeting the administrative requirements of the University. It was his contention that inasmuch as there was a valid rank list in force during the time when vacancies arose to the said temporary posts created by the University, the persons in the rank list had to be considered for appointment to the said temporary posts of University Assistants also, over and above their right to be considered for appointment to the sanctioned posts that were notified.

3. Through a counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent University, the stand taken was that there were only 211 posts of Assistants sanctioned in the University, and the said posts were all filled up by regular hands from the rank lists prepared by the PSC. The 42 posts referred to by the petitioners in the Writ Petition were stated to be temporary posts, the costs of which were met by the University itself from the fee collected from the recognized institutions as ‘fee for recognition’. It was the stand of the University that the posts were purely temporary in nature, since, the University, being a grantee Institution, could not find its own funds for the salary and other benefits attached to a regular post, which was ordinarily sanctioned by the Government, which would also bear the expenses in connection with the said regular posts. The mode of appointment, through the PSC, was applicable only for filling up the regular sanctioned posts in the University, and the temporary posts were ordinarily filled by the University through contract appointments pursuant to a selection process conducted by the University for the same.

4. The learned Single Judge, who considered the matter, took note of the stand of the respondent University that there were no vacancies available in substantive sanctioned posts in the University, to which persons like the writ petitioners, who were included in the rank list prepared by the PSC, could be appointed, and found that, at any rate, inasmuch as the validity of the rank list in which the petitioners were ranked had expired, the petitioners could not claim any right for consideration to appointment, against the temporary posts, after the expiry of the validity of the rank list. The action of the respondent University in appointing daily wage/contract employees to the temporary posts created to meet the exigencies of service, was seen as unobjectionable.

5. Before us, it is the contention of Sri.Kaleeswaram Raj, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, that inasmuch as the University had created 48 temporary posts of Assistants since 2001, and the said posts continued to exist in the University even now, the clear indication was that there was a requirement in the University for the said 48 additional posts of Assistants, and the University could not, merely on account of the fact that the posts were classified as ‘temporary posts’, deny appointments in the said posts to candidates who were ranked in the rank list prepared by the PSC. It is pointed out that even at the stage of the Writ Petition, and prior to the expiry of the rank list in which the 1st