IMPORTANT POINT
Writ petitions against autonomous institutions like IIMK are not maintainable due to lack of substantial governmental control.

JUDGMENT :

N.NAGARESH, J.

The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.19841/2024 is aggrieved by the hostile and discriminatory action shown against her by the employer in the matter of promotion and service conditions. The petitioner seeks to command respondents 2 to 4 to publish the result of the DPC held on 29.05.2023 for selection to the post of Administrative Officer.

2. The petitioner states that she commenced her service as Assistant at the Central Secretariat in the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. She was sent on deputation to Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam and Coimbatore. On 10.09.2012, she joined the IIM, Kozhikode as Assistant. She was promoted to the post of Assistant Administrative Officer on 02.07.2019. Respondents 5 and 6, who joined as Assistant Administrative Officers on 04.03.2020 and 23.03.2020, are juniors to the petitioner.

3. The petitioner states that there occurred a retirement vacancy of an Administrative Officer on 01.06.2023. The petitioner was the only eligible candidate for promotion to the post. The 2^nd respondent relaxed the eligibility conditions and allowed respondents 5 and 6 to participate in the selection.The petitioner objected to grant of relaxation.

4. The petitioner states that as per the Recruitment Rules, 2019, relaxation in the qualifying service can be made only to an extent of three months. Respondents 5 and 6 were granted relaxation exceeding the said period. For respondents 5 and 6, the relaxation granted is one year. It is illegal, contends the petitioner. The petitioner states that she has been subjected to hostile discrimination on the ground of gender and cast.

5. The petitioner therefore seeks to command respondents 2 to 4 to publish the result of the DPC held on 29.05.2023 for selection to the post of Administrative Officer and to declare that respondents 5 and 6 are not qualified as on 01.01.2023 to be considered for promotion to the post of Administrative Officer and also to declare that respondents 5 and 6 are not entitled to the relaxation provided in Ext.P1 OM as the cut off date provided in the Recruitment Rules, 2019 is always the Calendar Year and was never shifted to the Financial Year.

6. W.P.(C) No.22722/2024 has been filed by the petitioner who was appointed to the post of Chief Purchase Officer in the IIM, Kozhikode on 22.03.2021. The petitioner is seeking to quash Ext.P20 Memorandum of Charge and to restrain the respondents from initiating any proceedings on the basis of Ext.P20.

7. In Ext.P20, it has been alleged that the petitioner, while working as Chief Purchase Officer, had interfered in administrative matters questioning a superior officer; that the petitioner submitted a representation regarding service matters of erstwhile CAO of IIMK on CPGRAMS of the Ministry; that the petitioner, on 01.12.2023, behaved in a way which is disorderly and being discourteous to a senior officer; that the petitioner acted in a way interfering and causing disturbance to the healthy work atmosphere of the institute and that the petitioner acted in negligent manner in not following instructions to ensure the quality of the supplied goods and materials received from private suppliers and not following the approved process for tendering, amounting to dereliction of duty and misconduct.

8. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.19841/2024 has advanced various legal grounds to show that respondents 5 and 6 are not qualified to be considered for promotion to the post of Administrative Officer occurred on 01.06.2023. In W.P. (C) No.22722/2024, the petitioner has advanced various grounds to urge that the disciplinary enquiry proceedings initiated against the petitioner as per Ext.P20 Memorandum of Charge, are illegal and unsustainable.

9. The Standing Counsel representing the IMMK raised a preliminary objection as regards maintainability of the writ petition, urging that the IIMK is neither State nor an instrumentality of the State. In view of the said objection, the arguments were advanced by either si