IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.B. SURESH KUMAR, SOPHY THOMAS, JJ.
Deputy Director of Collegiate Education, Thrissur – Appellant
Versus
Santhosh T. S/o Sathyasheelan K. – Respondent
W.A. Nos. 1766, 1872 of 2022, W.A. No. 49 of 2023
Decided On : 09-02-2023
Constitution of India,1950 - Seeking appointment to the post of Laboratory Assistant - Whether in a situation of this nature petitioners can be said to be approbating and reprobating - Government directed the Director of Collegiate Education to ascertain whether the Management has any objection in downgrading the posts of Laboratory Assistants in which the petitioners were appointed to Office Attendants for a period of one year so as to accommodate them in the said post until they complete their period of probation and then promote them to the post of Laboratory Assistant - Held, law does not permit a person to approbate and reprobate - A person who maintained the stand that a transaction is valid for obtaining a benefit, cannot maintain the stand that the transaction is void, for obtaining another benefit - Rule is one evolved and applied to do equity. As far as the case on hand is concerned, in light of the interpretation given by the learned Single Judge to Statute 41(12) as accepted by this Court, the petitioners were entitled to get their appointments approved with effect from their initial dates of appointments - As it is inequitable to deny the petitioners the benefits which they are legitimately entitled to, merely for the reason that they have received the pay and emoluments based on the decision of the Government, the aim of equity being not to frustrate legitimate rights, according to us, the principle aforesaid cannot be applied to the facts of this case - Appeal Dismissed
JUDGMENT :
P.B. SURESH KUMAR, J.
1. These appeals are instituted challenging the common judgment in three writ petitions namely, W.P. (C) Nos.1459 of 2021, 8766 of 2017 and 8767 of 2017. The matter relates to the approval of the appointment of the petitioners in the writ petitions as Laboratory Assistants in the service of Sree Vyasa NSS College, Vadakkancherry, an aided college affiliated to the Calicut University and covered by the Direct Payment Scheme of the State Government. As the writ petitions were disposed of by a common judgment, the appeals are also disposed of by this common judgment. Parties and documents are referred to in this judgment, unless otherwise mentioned, as they appear in W.P. (C) No. 1459 of 2021.
2. As per the staff pattern fixed by the Directorate of Collegiate Education for the College, there are 11 posts of Laboratory Assistants. In terms of Statute 66 of the Calicut University (Conditions of Service of the Teachers and Members of Non-Teaching Staff) First Statutes, 1979 (the Statutes), vacancies in the higher grades in private colleges are to be filled up by promotion from the next lower categories, if qualified persons are available and if not, by direct recruitment, by inviting applications and conducting a selection as prescribed in the Statutes. As qualified hands were not available in the service of the College in the categories next lower to the grade of Laboratory Assistant, the College resorted to the process of direct recruitment for filling up the vacancies in the post of Laboratory Assistant. Ext.P5 is the notification issued by the College in this regard. Thereupon, a Selection Committee was constituted. Based on the recommendations of the Selection Committee, a selection was conducted and the management appointed the petitioners in the writ petitions as Laboratory Assistants in the College between 09.09.2013 and 07.07.2014.
3. The appointments of the petitioners were however not approved by the competent authority on the ground that candidates seeking appointment to the post of Laboratory Assistant shall have to clear Attenders Test conducted by the Kerala Public Service Commission in terms of Statute 41(12) of the Statutes. The Attenders Test being one conducted by the Kerala Public Service Commission only for in-service Office Attendants of private colleges, the petitioners took up the matter with the Government for appropriate orders to absolve them from clearing the Attenders Test. On the said representation of the petitioners, the Government directed the Director of Collegiate Education to ascertain whether the Management has any objection in downgrading the posts of Laboratory Assistants in which the petitioners were appointed to Office Attendants for a period of one year so as to accommodate them in the said post until they complete their period of probation and then promote them to the post of Laboratory Assistant. The Management agreed to the said course and consequently, after receiving a proposal from the Management for the said purpose, the Government permitted to accommodate the petitioners in the College as Office Attendants for a period of one year and then as Laboratory Assistants. Ext.P10 is the communication sent by the Government in this regard to the Director of Collegiate Education. Consequent upon the said arrangement, the appointment of the petitioners were approved initially for a period of one year as Office Attendants and then as Laboratory Assistants. Even though the petitioners were appointed during 2013 and 2014, the process aforesaid was completed only in the month of February and March, 2016 and they have been receiving salary for the period from their respective dates of appointments only from February and March, 2016.
4. As per the existing rules, Laboratory Assistants need not have to work during vacations as opposed to Office Attendants. It appears that a doubt arose later as to whether the petitioners who have not worked during vacations are entitled to
Joint Action Committee of Air Line Pilots' Assn. of India vs. DG of Civil Aviation
Punjab and Sind Bank vs. S. Ranveer Singh Bawa
Directly recruited Lab Assistants are entitled to salary and benefits as per their respective posts despite lacking specific qualifications, as previously established by the court.
It is well settled that declaration of law of this nature cannot have effect of resurrecting stale and time barred claims.
Appointments made with proper oversight and approval cannot be deemed illegal solely due to procedural irregularities, especially when no disciplinary actions have been taken against the appointees.
The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to statutory reservation provisions in employment, rejecting claims of isolated post applicability.
Appointments in public service must adhere to the order of merit as recommended by the relevant authority, and back-door entries are impermissible.
Point of law; It is clearly clarified in this judgment also in line with the earlier judgments also that unless and until the original appointment is a “regular recruitment” in accordance with “the r....
Promotion rights based on seniority prior to rule changes upheld; non-consideration of eligible employees violates legal rights.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.