SREEKUMARAN Vs. KERALA AGRL UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition filed under R.148 of the Kerala High Court Rules (for short 'the Rules') seeking permission to implead the third respondent in a representative capacity to represent all non graduate employees who came to the service of the first respondent. Kerala Agricultural University, under S 58 of the Kerala Agricultural University Act (for short 'the Act') and to implead the fourth respondent in a representative capacity to represent those employees who came to the University service from the Rural Institute, Thavanur and to take out notice by paper publication. The application is opposed by the third respondent

(2.) Petitioners who are graduates were directly recruited as L.D. Clerks. Third respondent was originally an employee of the State Government. She came to the service of the University by virtue of S.58 of the Act. She is a non graduate. Fourth respondent was originally in the service of the Rural Institute, Thavanur. She came to the service of the University when the employees of the Institute were absorbed in the service of the University. Under the University Statutes, minimum qualification for the post of L.D. Clerk is graduation. The posts of Asst. Grade I and U.D.C. are promotion posts for L.D. Clerks. Therefore, according to petitioners, a non graduate cannot become an Asst. Grade I or U.D.C. It is averred in the petition that employees who came from various colleges into the service of the University under S.58 of the Act included a large number of L.D Clerks and U.D. Clerks and a few other categories, a substantial number of them being non graduates. However, promotions were effected provisionally. Meanwhile, the University Statutes are amended by adding a note to state that for transferred ministerial employees from the Department of Agricultural and Animal Husbandry, the requirement of minimum qualification as graduation will be relaxed for the purpose of promotion. This amendment is said to have come into force on 10-2-1978 and according to petitioners would not affect regular promotions to vacancies which arose prior thereto. According to petitioners. Rural Institute, Thavanur was an independent institution and not a Department of Government. The control and management of the Institute was transferred to the University and the staff was absorbed conditionally, as per the provisions of S: 59 of the Act. According to petitioners, the staff of the institution had no right to say that their service must be integrated from the date of taking over. In 1977, the University ordered integration of staff with effect from 1-4-1977 as per Ext. P3. But this did not affect the petitioners. However, Ext. P3 was challenged in O.P. 2930 of 1978 claiming integration with effect from 12-12-1975. The original petition was allowed without impleading the petitioners. Thereupon, the University modified Ext. P3 order on 9-3-1984 ordering integration with effect from 12-12-1975 under Ext P5. That has adversely affected the petitioners and they seek to challenge the same. According to them, the past-services of those employees in the Institute could not be reckoned The exemption clause would not apply to the non graduate staff who came from Rural Institute, Thavanur Ext. P7 is the order of postings and reversions on the basis of the integrated list which petitioners are challenging. Petitioners want this action to be a representative one, that is, representative of the employees who were absorbed under S.58 of the Act as well as employees who came from the Rural Institute, Thavanur. Third respondent is a non graduate employee who came to the University service under S.58 of the Act and according to the petitioners she has to be impleaded in a representative capacity. The fourth respondent is to represent the employees who came from the Rural Institute, Thavanur.

(3.) The objections raised in the counter affidavit filed by third respondent can be summarised as follows: Third respondent is not willing to assume any representative capacity. She is not agreeable to represent persons who are not even known to her. She cannot be impleaded in a representative capacity without her consent and petitioner has no right to do any such thing under R.148 of the Rules. She can urge only her case and not that of others. She is not obliged to act on behalf of others. If the Rule requires her to play a role of representative, the rule is bad. Resort to R.148 is not warranted. The number of persons to be represented is not mentioned in the petition. There is no material to show that those persons are numerous. R.148 of the Rules does not contain safeguards contained in O.1 R.8 CPC.