RAHUL V. Vs. CHANDRAN CHENNAPPOIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are filed against two separate judgments delivered by the learned Single Judge. As per the judgment dated 18.09.2017, W.P.(C) No.20405 of 2013 was disposed of noticing that the Syndicate of the Kerala University has already decided to give regular appointment to one Sri. Chandran, who was the writ petitioner therein. The appointment in these cases relates to the post of Peon. The appellant had got himself impleaded in the said Writ Petition claiming that he was interested in the controversy. He had also filed W.P.(C) No.31627 of 2017 challenging the decision of the Syndicate of the Kerala University dated 09.06.2017 deciding to reappoint Sri. Chandran as peon. The said Writ Petition has been dismissed by a separate judgment dated 20.10.2017. Since the dispute involved is one and the same and the parties are also same, both the appeals are considered and disposed of together. They have come up before us for admission. W.A.No.2243 of 2017 arises out of W.P.(C) No.20405 of 2013 and W.A.No.2265 of 2017 arises out of W.P.(C) No.31627 of 2017. W.A.No.2243 of 2017 is treated as the leading case.

(2.) As already noticed above, the issue relates to the appointment to the post of Peon/Watchman in the Kerala University. Sri. Chandran who is the first respondent in W.A.No.2243 of 2017 was an applicant for selection and appointment to the post of peon. He had responded to a notification issued by the University on 02.08.1999. The selection appears to have dragged on for an abnormally long period of time. The rank list was published in the year 2009, after the lapse of a decade. The first respondent was ranked No.1 in the supplementary list of ST candidates. He was granted appointment as peon on the basis of his position in the rank list on 23.07.2011, as per exhibit P2 in a leave vacancy. However, he was terminated on 19.08.2011. Later on, on 24.04.2012, though he was sought to be reappointed in another leave vacancy, he did not join. The University appears to have issued a memo directing him to join duty. But, he did not respond to the said memo.

(3.) In view of the above, the University sought clarification from the Public Service Commission (PSC for short) through exhibit P7 dated 22.09.2012. The PSC appears to have responded by issuing Annx-II dated 06.11.2012 pointing out that, an omission to join duty would entail the treating of the vacancy as 'Not Joining Duty', to which, any other candidate could be appointed. The Government also appears to have endorsed the said decision. In the above state of affairs, the Syndicate of the University that met on 09.06.2017 decided by exhibit P8 to offer regular appointment to the first respondent as a Peon in the University. The first respondent had filed W.P. (C)No.20405 of 2013 alleging that the University was about to appoint another person one Smt Shyamalatha K.K. to the said post. It was during the pendency of the said Writ Petition, that the Syndicate had decided to appoint the first respondent to the post in question.