The petitioners have approached this Court inter alia seeking the following reliefs:
a) call for the records leading to Ext.P10 and quash the same to the extent it refuses to appointment to the petitioners as Assistant Grade II by the issuance of a writ of certiorari, or any other such appropriate writ order of direction;
b) declare that the petitioners are entitled to be appointed as Assistant Grade II in the existing vacancies pursuant to the direction of the Supreme Court;
c) issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to appoint the petitioners to regular vacancies of Assistant Grade II by absorbing them to existing vacancies;
d) issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to terminate the service of the petitioners from the post of Assistant Grade II.
e) call for the records leading to Ext.P9 and quash the same to the extent it permits exclusion of the petitioners alone from the WP(C).No.6971/2011-V.
2 benefit of regularisation of service as Assistant Grade II by the issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction;
2. The facts leading to the case would show that the first respondent University invited application for appointment to the post of Assistant Grade II as per Ext.P1. The petitioners have participated in the selection process and a rank list was published on 14.5.2002. Their names were also included in the rank list. Certain issues have arisen in respect of appointment of persons in the rank list. Ultimately, as per a direction issued by the Supreme Court several persons were appointed on a regular basis from the said rank list. The petitioners were not regularised on the ground that sanctioned strength in the entry cadre was only 250 which is already filled up. The petitioners were aggrieved by the non inclusion of their names in Ext.P10 list, by which several persons were regularised.
3. The University has filed counter-affidavit explaining the circumstances under which the University is WP(C).No.6971/2011-V.
3 not in a position to appoint all the persons included in Ext.P10. There was an audit objection by which it was indicated that the University cannot regularise all the persons over and above 250 vacancies available. But it is now pointed out that as per the information issued by the Joint Director of Local Fund Audit, Calicut University Audit on 27.4.2013 it is inter alia indicated therein that there is no anomaly if the total strength of Assistants does not exceed 750. It is indicated as follows:
“The sanctioned strength of assistants as per ratio 1:1:1 in the entry cadre is 250 whereas at present 354 Assistants are working as per Ref(1). But there is no anomaly in it as the total strength of Assistants does not exceed 750.”
In other words, the Auditor has clearly stated that there is no anomaly in regularising the petitioners provided the total strength of Assistants does not exceed 750. In the above circumstance, I am of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of directing the University to take into consideration the clarification in the Audit report dated WP(C).No.6971/2011-V.
4 27.4.2013 and to pass appropriate orders as far as the petitioners are concerned.
Writ petition is hence disposed of directing the University to consider the clarification in the Audit report dated 27.4.2014 and to pass appropriate orders within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
A.M.SHAFFIQUE, (Judge) Kvs/-
-// True copy //-
PA TO JUDGE.