RAJENDRAN Vs. KERALA AYURVEDIC STUDIES AND RESEARCH SOCIETY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned single Judge in O.P.No.10377 of 1989. The appellants are persons who are sponsored by the Employment Exchange and who were provisionally appointed as Teachers in The Kerala Ayurvedic Studies & Research Society, Kottakkal, by order Ext. P2 dated 21-1-1989 for a period of 180 days. By the subsequent order Ext. P3 dated 25-7-1989 the appellants were continued on a purely provisional basis liable to be terminated at any time without prior notice until further orders. These appointments came to be made having regard to the existence of regular vacancies of Tutors which were required to be filled up on a regular basis. The Managing Committee of the institution took a decision as per Ext. R1(d) to fill up these posts on a regular basis and pending such selection and recruitment to appoint these appellants on a provisional basis. In pursuance of the said decision, the posts were advertised as per Ext. P4 dated 30-3-1989 for being filled up on a regular basis from among the qualified hands after a proper selection. It is in this background that the appellants rushed to this Court in O.P.No. 10377 of 1989 for the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the first respondent to appoint the appellants in the vacancies evidenced by Ext. P4 advertisement. The writ petition has been dismissed by the learned single Judge without examining the question as to whether a writ petition against the first respondent, which is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, is maintainable. We shall not be understood as expressing any opinion on this question as there has not been any debate on that question, as on merits it is found that there is no substance in this case.

(2.) It is not disputed that the appellants were not regularly appointed as Tutors in accordance with the relevant provisions regulating the filling up of regular vacancies. That the vacancies are permanent vacancies is not disputed. From the proceedings of the first respondent, Ext.R1(d) it is clear that the first respondent took the decision to fill up these vacancies by proper selection process and pending such regular recruitment decided to appoint the appellants on a purely provisional basis. Exts.P2 and P3 produced by the appellants fully substantiate these aspects. Though the appellants were appointed purely on a provisional basis, as is clear from Ext.R1(d) as a stop-gap arrangement pending regular recruitment to these posts, the case of the appellants is that they have become entitled for regular appointment to these vacancies and that therefore we should injunct the first respondent not to fill up the vacancies in pursuance of Ext. P4. Reliance was placed in this behalf on S.57(6)(a) of the Calicut University Act, 1975, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), which reads:

(3.) As we have come to the conclusion that the appellants are not entitled to seek relief on the interpretation sought by them on clause (a) of S.57(6) of the Act, we have considered it unnecessary to examine as to whether the writ petition is maintainable as against the first respondent, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act and also as to whether it is a private college. Before concluding we may say that some of the appellants who did not appear for interview did so at their own risk and nothing can be done in their case at this stage as some of the candidates as submitted by Sri. Warriyar who were selected by the process of selection as per Ext. P4 have already been appointed.