Petitioners, who are included in the ranked list for the appointment of Assistants under the respondent University, are seeking a direction to the University to appoint them from the ranked list by extending the period of expiry of the ranked list. 2. On 13.12.2004, the respondent University issued notification inviting application to the post of Assistant Grade II. Petitioners applied for recruitment. After completing the selection process University published Ext.P1 ranked list dated 12.11.2009 for the post of Assistant Grade II. There were 616 candidates in the main list and 228 candidates in the supplementary list. Ranked list Numbers of the petitioners 1 to 4 are 275, 284, 288 and 381 respectively in the main list. The period of validity of the ranked list was two years. However, the respondent University issued an order in November 2011 extending the period of ranked list by one year, which expired on 11.11.2012. University has already appointed 308 candidates as Assistants on regular basis from Ext.P1. By Ext.P2 dated 16.04.2011, University appointed 36 candidates for 179 days on contract basis from Ext.P1 ranked list. Thus petitioners 1 and 2 got appointment on contract basis. The term of appointment was extended by one year as per Ext.P3 order dated 10.10.2011 and further extended by Ext.P4 order dated 07.09.2012. As per Ext.P5 dated 12.07.2011, the respondent University appointed 20 candidates from Ext.P1 ranked list as Assistants on contract basis for 179 days and petitioners 3 and 4 are included in this order. Later the term of appointment was extended by another one year by Ext.P6 order dated 02.01.2012 and by yet another year by Ext.P7 dated 24.02.2012.
3. The petitioners allege that the Government by G.O. Dated 26.03.2012, enhanced the age of retirement of employees upto 56 years and this was made applicable to employees in the respondent University also. The Government requested the Kerala Public Service Commission to issue orders extending the period of validity of all ranked list then in force upto 31.12.2013 provided the maximum period of validity does not exceed 4 years and 6 months. Petitioners allege that they submitted Ext.P8 representation to the Vice Chancellor of the respondent University requesting that the period of validity of Ext.P1 ranked list be extended as done by the PSC. Petitioners also submitted Ext.P9 representation before the Chief Minister requesting to issue appropriate direction to the University to extend the validity period. But no action was taken on those representations. Petitioners allege that there are existing vacancies in the category of Assistants and at present 60 candidates included in Ext.P1 ranked list are working on contract basis as Assistants and this vacancies have to be filled up by effecting regular appointments from Ext.P1 ranked list by extending the period of validity. It is with this background, the petitioners have approached this court.
4. In the detailed counter affidavit filed by the respondent University, they would contend that Ext.P1 ranked list, which was in force for a period of 2 years, was extended for a further period of one year with effect from 12.11.2011 and its validity expired on 11.11.2012. Therefore, they would contend that the petitioners are not legally entitled to seek relief to extend the validity of the ranked list. They would further contend that there were no regular vacancies in the post of Assistants as on the date of expiry of the ranked list. There are 25 candidates who entered on contract basis in the University. The term of appointment of these Assistants on contract basis has been extended for another term of 179 days. They would further contend that all regular vacancies existed on the date of expiry of the ranked list were filled and there was no delay in filling the regular vacancies. Therefore, they prayed for a dismissal of the writ petitioner.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the University quite in extenso.
6. Admittedly, the validity of Ext.P1 ranked list in which the petitioners' names were included expired on 11.11.2012. However, the petitioners were continuing on contract basis in the University as Assistants Grade II. The petitioners would allege that there are existing vacancies in the University at present and if the period of validity of Ext.P1 ranked list is extended, they will get appointment. The respondent University on the other hand would contend that, as the period of validity of Ext.P1 ranked list expired, the petitioners are not legally entitled to seek relief to extend the validity of ranked list.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that when the age of retirement of Government employees was enhanced to 56 years in the year 2012, the same was made applicable to the employees of the University also. It was further pointed out that on request by the Government the Kerala Public Service Commission has issued orders extending the period of validity of all ranked lists then in force upto 31.03.2013. However, the maximum period of validity was limited to 4 years and 6 months.
8. As rightly submitted by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent University, Rule 13 of the Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure has no application as far as the respondent University is concerned as the selection and appointment are made by the University.
9. On the representation filed by the employees' association of the respondent University to the Vice Chancellor to extend the validity of the period of ranked list, Vice Chancellor extended the period of ranked list for one more year beyond the period of 11.11.2012 exercising powers under Chapter III Section 10(17) of the M.G University Act, 1985. However, the Syndicate standing committee on staff held on 28.12.2012 discussed all aspects of the extension of the ranked list of Assistant Grade II made by the Vice Chancellor, resolved to recommend not to approve the decision taken by the Vice Chancellor by Ext.R1(b) resolution. The Syndicate in its meeting held on 04.06.2013 has also resolved to apprise the Chancellor about the subsequent decision of the Syndicate and Vice Chancellor by Exts.R1(c) and R1(d). It was submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that no substantive vacancy is available in the University.
10. It is true that petitioners were appointed on contract basis for a limited period which was extended further from time to time. There was a reason for this contract appointment. If a person avails leave or absents from duty it is definite that he would return to duty and therefore, the said vacancies could be filled up only temporarily. The temporary vacancies would cease to exist as and when the incumbent on leave rejoins duty. It is specifically averred in the counter affidavit that in unification of the retirement age the University has taken all vacancies consequent on retirement upto 31.03.2013 treating it as supernumerary vacancies.
11. It is settled law that only because a person is included in the ranked list, he will not get any vested right to get appointment. The petitioners names were placed lower in the ranked list. That is the reason why they could not be appointed against regular vacancies. As the petitioners do not have any accrued right to get the validity period of Ext.P1 ranked list extended, this Court cannot compel the respondent University to extend the period of validity. Though the petitioners representation was acted upon by the then Vice Chancellor, the Syndicate of the respondent University was not inclined to accept the recommendation as evidenced by Exts.R1(b),(c) and (d). It was observed by the Syndicate in Ext.R1(b) that there was no exigency in exercising the emergency powers under Section 310 (17) of the MG University Act, by the Vice Chancellor, whose turn was to expire on 14.11.2012. It was observed that decision was taken without considering the factual and legal aspects. The Syndicate also considered the fact that the list was for 2 years which was extended upto one more year and all the then existing vacancies were filled up. Besides, 55 supernumerary posts of Assistants were created and it would take care of the retirement vacancies upto 31.03.2013 of which 17 posts are yet to be regularised. Therefore, there was no permanent vacancy of Assistant Grade II as on 31.03.2013. It can also be seen from Ext.R1(b) that the decision of the syndicate meeting in rejecting the decision of the Vice Chancellor was upheld by the Chancellor.
On a consideration of the entire materials placed on record, this Court is of the definite view that the scope of interference by this Court in the matter is little. Therefore, the writ petition fails and accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JUDGE das