Dr. Jalsa M. v. University of Calicut and others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN** **THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/19TH KARTHIKA, 1938** **WP(C).No. 29154 of 2013 (T)** **----------------------------** **PETITIONER(S): -------------** **DR.JALSA M.,** **ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, SREE VIVEKANANDA COLLEGE, KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 523.** **BY ADVS.SRI.TITUS MANI SRI.BINNY THOMAS** **RESPONDENT(S):** **--------------** **1. UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O, THENJIPALAM, MALAPPURAM - 673 635.** **2. COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ROUND NORTH, THRISSUR - 680 001.** **3. SIRAJ K.A., ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF PHYSICS, FAROOK COLLEGE, P.O.FAROOK COLLEGE, KOZHIKODE - 673 632.** **4. KRISHNANUNNI M., ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR & HOD, ENGLISH DEPARTMENT, SREE VIVEKANANDA COLLEGE, KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 523.** **msv/** **-2-** **-2-** ## **WP(C).No. 29154 of 2013 (T)** ## **----------------------------** ## *** ADDITIONAL R5 IMPLEADED** **5. ADV.P.K.SURESH BABU, S/O.LATE KUMARAN, NANDHANAM APPARTMENTS, C BLOCK, 2ND FLOOR, AYYANTHOLE P.O., THRISSUR.** *** IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD.10.11.2016 IN IA.2002/2013.** **R1 BY ADVS. SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW, SC SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC R2 BY ADVS. SRI.UNNIKRISHNAN V.ALAPATT, SC SRI.KRISHNA MENON, SC R4 BY ADV. SMT.N.SANTHA SRI.K.A.BALAN SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO SRI.S.A.ANAND SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY R5 BY ADV. SRI.C.PRABIN BENNY** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **msv/** ## **WP(C).No. 29154 of 2013 (T)** ## **----------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** ## **-----------------------** - **EXT.P-1 TRUE COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER DT.15.2.2012 EXT.P-2 TRUE COPY OF PROPOSAL FOR APPROVAL OF THE APPOINTMENT SENT BY THE PRINCIPAL DT.18.4.2012** - **EXT.P-3 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DT.5.6.2013 EXT.P-4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.12.11.2013 OF 1ST RESPONDENT REJECTING APPROVAL** - **EXT.P-5 TRUE COPY OF LETTER OF AWARD DT.23.3.11 BY DIRECTOR ICSSR** - **EXT.P-6 TRUE COPY OF LETTER OF CERTIFICATE DT.26.11.2012 BY DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL OF LETTERS, M.G.UNIVERSITY.** - **EXT.P-7 TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DT.12.11.2013 BY THE PETITIONER EXT.P-8 TRUE COPY OF EXPLANATION DT.12.11.2013 BY 4TH RESPONDENT** - **EXT.P-8(A) TRUE COPY OF ANNEX-I TO THE EXPLANATION OF 4TH RESPONDENT** - **EXT.P-8(B) TRUE COPY OF ANNEX-2 TO THE EXPLANATION OF 4TH RESPONDENT** **EXT.P9 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF NOTIFICATION NO.GA II/F3/725/99 DTD.29.3.1999.** - **EXT.P10 TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DTD.31.7.2014 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.** ## **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS** - **-----------------------** - **EXT.R5(a): TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD.21.11.2013 FILED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN BEFORE 3RD RESPONDENT HEREIN.** - **EXT.R5(b): TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD.21.11.2013 FILED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN.** **//TRUE COPY//** **msv/** **P.S.TO JUDGE** ## ANU SIVARAMAN, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.29154 of 2013 ----------------------------------------Dated this the 10[th] day of November, 2016 ## JUDGMENT The prayer in this writ petition is for quashing Ext.P4 order of the Calicut University, rejecting the proposal for approval of the appointment of the petitioner. It is further prayed that the 1[st] respondent University be directed to reconsider Ext.P2 proposal for approval of appointment of the petitioner afresh in accordance with law. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Professor in Malayalam in Sree Vivekananda College, Kunnamkulam by Ext.P1 order dated 15.02.2012. It is submitted that the appointment was on the basis of a selection conducted by a Selection Committee, duly constituted under Statute 4 of the Calicut University (Conditions of Service of Teachers and Members of NonTeaching Staff) First Statutes, 1979. It is submitted that the Selection Committee had found the petitioner qualified and W.P.(C) No.29154 of 2013 -2- suitable for appointment and the management had sent up the proposal for approval of the petitioner's appointment by Ext.P2. When no orders were issued on the proposal for approval, the petitioner had approached this Court and by Ext.P3 judgment dated 05.06.2013, this Court directed the consideration of the proposal. Thereafter, by Ext.P4 order dated 12.11.2013, the proposal was rejected. It was stated in Ext.P4 order that the petitioner's appointment could be approved only after production of the JRF/SRF pass certificates. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that SRF being a grant, the petitioner had produced all available materials before the University by Exts.P5 and P6 communications. It is contended that the delay in the ultimate rejection of approval to the petitioner's appointment was only on account of the malafide influence exerted by respondents 3 and 4, who had personal issues with the petitioner. The petitioner contends that the entire exercise was vitiated by malafide. It is further urged that the University, while considering the question of approval of appointment, has no W.P.(C) No.29154 of 2013 -3- power to go into the manner of assessment made by the duly selected Selection Committee. It is contended that the Selection Committee was fully satisfied as to the qualifications of the petitioner. In the above view of the matter, the University should not have conducted a detailed enquiry into the award of marks by the Selection Committee, who had approved the petitioner for appointment. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent University, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the second respondent and the learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 4. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the University would submit that Statute 14 of Chapter 2 of the Calicut University (Conditions of Service of the Teachers and Members of Non-Teaching Staff) First Statutes, 1979 provides as follows:- “14 (1) Approval of every appointment to the teaching post shall be made by the Syndicate W.P.(C) No.29154 of 2013 -4- subject to the condition that the appointment is in accordance with the staff pattern fixed by the University and that the person so appointed is fully qualified for the post.” 5. The Selection Committee, constituted under Statute 4 of Chapter 2 of the said statute, consists of representatives of the educational agency, a person nominated by the educational agency from among principals, heads of departments and professors of colleges, one member chosen by the educational agency from amongst Secretaries to Government and District Collectors, one expert chosen by the educational agency from a subject wise list of experts, etc as its members. It is contended that the petitioner was selected by a duly selected Selection Committee. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner is qualified for the appointment to the post. Therefore, the only question would be that relating to the award of marks by the Selection Committee for the qualification of SRF possessed by the petitioner. This Court in Seleena K.V. (Dr) v. Manager, Malabar Christian College and Others [2009 KHC 445] has held that the University, in W.P.(C) No.29154 of 2013 -5- exercise of its power to approve appointments, cannot reassess the qualification, award of marks etc. in tune with particular components as provided in the guidelines. It is stated that if the qualifications are not properly assessed, the University has to revert the matter back to the Selection Committee. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent would submit that the petitioner was a person appointed by a duly constituted Selection Committee and is fully qualified for the post of Assistant Professor. It is further contended that the second respondent was forced to issue proceedings against the petitioner in view of Ext.P4 order of rejection of approval. The learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 4 would contend that they have been impleaded, and allegations raised against them without any justification whatsoever. It is contended that the third respondent was only a member of the Approval Committee of the University and the decision as given by Ext.P4 could not have been influenced by him in any manner in his individual W.P.(C) No.29154 of 2013 -6- capacity. It is further contended that the 4[th] respondent had no role whatsoever in the question of approval of the petitioner's appointment. Therefore, the allegations raised against him are completely baseless. 6. I have considered the contentions advanced. The question substantially raised in this writ petition is with regard to the validity of Ext.P4 order of the University, rejecting the proposal for approval of the petitioner's appointment. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and it is admitted by the respondents 1 and 2 that the petitioner is qualified for appointment as Assistant Professor in Malayalam. Going by the provisions of Statute 14 of the Calicut University First Statutes, 1979, the University is empowered to examine whether the appointment is in accordance with the staff pattern, and also whether the appointee is qualified for the post. Since there are no disputes on these two aspects of the matter, the University could not have passed an order of rejection as is contained in Ext.P4 order. I do not propose to adjudicate on the other questions raised in this writ petition W.P.(C) No.29154 of 2013 -7- regarding the role of respondents 3 and 4. The rejection of approval by Ext.P4 order does not appear to be supported by any valid reason which could have been considered by the University in terms of the Statute 14 of the Calicut University First Statutes, 1979. In the above view of the matter, Ext.P4 order is set aside. The University is directed to take up and consider Ext.P2 proposal for approval of appointment of the petitioner strictly in accordance with the first statutes, and pass orders thereon within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Sd/ANU SIVARAMAN, JUDGE vs