JAYAKRISHNAN V Vs. CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court seeking directions to permit him to continue as Library Attendant. He contends that he had been appointed pursuant to a notification issued by the first respondent and after conducting an interview and due selection process. It is stated that the appointment is against one of the sanctioned posts of Library Attendant. He had appointed initially on 14.10.2009 and his contract of appointment had been continued with artificial breaks of 2-3 days till 31.12.2017. It is contended that the Deputy Librarian and the Assistant Librarian had recommended for extension of the service of the petitioner since there was need for Library staff. The petitioner further contends that he has all the qualifications necessary for regular appointment of the post of Library Attendant and that regular appointments had not been done only because the recruitment rules had not been approved. The petitioner contends that though the University had resorted to a recruitment drive for filling up the vacancies of Library Attendant by Ext.P8, no further steps had been taken. The petitioner therefore seeks for directions to regularise the service of the petitioner as also to permit the petitioner to continue as Library Attendant.

(2.) A statement has been filed on behalf of the respondent University. It is contended therein that the petitioner had been engaged on contract basis and the notification of such employment was for deputation as also for contract appointment in the absence of suitable hands to be appointed by deputation. It is stated that the petitioner's contract had been extended continuously which had given rise to certain complaints, one of which is produced as Annexure A. It is stated that the Department of Higher Education under the Ministry of Human Resource Development had sought explanation/comments on the issues in Annexure A complaint and the University had forwarded an action taken report on 17.11.2017, stating that a decision had been taken not to extend the contract of the petitioner and another contract employee referred to in Annexure A. It is stated that the University had taken a decision to engage the services of Trainees to strengthen the functioning of the University Library and that twenty trainees have been deputed in various centers of the University. It is further stated that the University is not proposing to make any contract appointment as Library Attendant after the expiry of the term of petitioner with effect from 31.12017. It is contended that since the Library trainees are deputed in the University there is no need to extend the contract of the petitioner.

(3.) I have considered the contentions advanced. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had been appointed on a contract basis in the year 2009, after the due procedure for such contract appointment. The contract had been extended several times and the petitioner had been enabled to continue till 31.12.2017. The petitioner was also continuing against a sanctioned post and the University contends that it does not intend to fill up the post held by the petitioner on a contract basis in future also.