Dr. Shibu Puthenparambil v. Centre for Professional and Advanced Studies (CPAS), Mahatma Gandhi University, Vice Chancellor and Syndicate of MG University, and State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 3[RD] DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 13TH JYAISHTA, 1944** ## **WP(C) NO. 17594 OF 2021** ## **PETITIONER:** DR.SHIBU PUTHENPARAMBIL, LECTURER IN HEALTH MANAGEMENT, DIVISIONAL OF HEALTH, SCHOOL OF MEDICAL EDUCATION (SME), MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, GANDHINAGAR P.O, KOTTAYAM, PIN – 686608. THE ADDRESS OF PETITIONER IS CORRECTED AS "ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR IN HEALTH MANAGEMENT AND HOD OF MHA AND MPH DIVISION OF HEALTH MANAGEMENT AND VICE PRINCIPAL OF SCHOOL OF MEDICAL EDUCATION ,CPAS GANDHINAGAR P.O,KOTTAYAM AS PER ORDER DATED 3/6/2022 IN I.A 1/2022 P.R.SOPHIYA SIJI JOY YOGAMAYA M.G ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 THE CENTRE FOR PROFESSIONAL AND ADVANCED STUDIES REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR SCHOOL OF MEDICAL EDUCATION(ANNEX), AROPOORKARA, GANDHI NAGAR, KOTTAYAM - 686008. 2 THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS P.O, KOTTAYAM - 686008. 3 THE VICE CHANCELLOR, CHAIRMAN OF THE SYNDICATE, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS P.O, KOTTAYAM - 686008. 4 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001. SRI SURIN GEORGE-SC; SRI.P C SASIDHARAN-SC; SRI K.M FAIZAL -GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 17594 OF 2021 2 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner says that he had been earlier working as an Associate Professor and Vice Principal of the School of Medical Education, Kottayam (SME for short), which is a self financing institution; and that subsequently he was transferred to the 1[st] respondent – Centre for Professional and Advanced Studies (CPAS), as per an agreement between the Mahatma Gandhi University and the latter. 2. The grievance impelled by the petitioner is that, even though he was employed by the 1[st] respondent in the afore manner and though the said entity was obligated to ensure his continuation as a Faculty under the above mentioned agreement, they have now issued Ext.P12 order of termination, ceasing his services; and thus prays that same be set aside. 3. Smt.P.R.Sophiya – learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, asserted that Ext.P12 is egregiously improper since it has been issued in conflict with the agreement between the University and the 1[st] respondent and therefore, that same is liable to be declared as being unlawful and unconstitutional, particularly because he was originally working with the 3 WP(C) NO. 17594 OF 2021 University after being selected through a valid process of law. The learned counsel thus prays that this Court set aside Ext.P12, so that her client can continue to be in the services of the 1[st] respondent. 4. In response, however, Smt.Jincy Michael, learned counsel representing Sri.P.C.Sasidharan – learned counsel for the 1[st] respondent, pointed out that his client is unable to continue with the Course in question on account of financial unviability and that it has already been closed. She added that, in fact, the present batch is the last one and that, on its outgoing, the course will remain abolished. She added that, therefore, the 1[st] respondent could have done nothing more than to have issued Ext.P12, especially because persons like the petitioners are governed by the declarations of this Court in **Sajeesh Kumar R. & Others v. State of Kerala & Others** [Writ Appeal No.2394 of 2018 and Connected Matters (MANU/KE/2910/2019)], which has been now approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. She, therefore, prayed that no further orders be issued against the 1[st] respondent. 5. Sri.Surin George Ipe – learned Standing Counsel for 4 WP(C) NO. 17594 OF 2021 the Mahatma Gandhi University, adopted the afore submissions of Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, however, showing me that, as per the declarations of the learned Division Bench above mentioned, the petitioner and such other similarly situated persons can be retrenched by the University following the provisions of Statute 2 to Chapter III of the Mahatma Gandhi University Statutes, 1997. He submitted that, therefore, the petitioner cannot impugn Ext.P12, but, at the best, can only seek that the directions of the learned Division Bench be complied with by the University, which he conceded they are willing to do, following due procedure. 6. After saying as afore, Sri.Surin George Ipe took me extensively through the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the SLP filed against the judgment of the learned Division Bench, to show me that it has been declared therein affirmatively that in cases like the present, whatever amounts paid by the first respondent shall be accounted for, while granting backwages and that every other direction of the Division Bench has been approved. He submitted that, hence, the best the petitioner can do is to seek that the directions of the learned Division Bench be complied with by the University; WP(C) NO. 17594 OF 2021 5 but added that this Court may not grant such a relief because it has not been sought for in this writ petition. 7. I have given the afore rival contentions detailed thought. I have also gone through the judgment of the learned Division Bench in its full, which has been now approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 8. There can be little doubt, going by the findings of the learned Division Bench, that persons like the petitioner are to be construed to be permanent employees of the University, having the status of teachers of Self Financing Institutions, which in turn obtains the status of Unaided Affiliated colleges. In such context, the following directions were issued: “XII(x). Where by reason of lack of qualification or by abolition of a course or otherwise, a teacher is terminated or a post abolished by the Society then the appellants who are thus terminated, shall be retrenched with six months notice, as provided in Statute 2 of Chapter III of the MG University Statute, 1997 or pay in lieu of notice and paid one months salary as on the date of termination, for every completed year of service, which includes the gratuity payable under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 as also retrenchment compensation akin to Section 25 F of the ID Act. XII (xi). The liability to retrenchment compensation and for salary to those appellants restored to the service shall be that of the University.” ## 9. Thus, the learned Division Bench has already provided for a situation where a course is abolished by the Society; in 6 WP(C) NO. 17594 OF 2021 which event, the termination of the faculty may become an inevitability, triggering consequences sanctioned therein. Hence, the challenge to the termination per se cannot appeal to this Court. 10. That being so said, it is also indubitable that whatever be the technical contentions that the University may urge regarding the absence of reliefs sought for by the petitioner in this case, they are bound to act as per the afore declarations and to take necessary action, including for payment of wages, if any unpaid by the Society; and for consequential action, including retrenchment, as the case may be. They cannot shy away from this responsibility because the afore directions have been approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court without any modification. In fact, this is expressly admitted by their learned standing counsel, who affirmed that necessary steps in this regard will be taken by his client. 11. In the afore circumstances, though this Court cannot set aside Ext.P12, because the first respondent says that they are unable to run the course on account of financial unviability, I am certain that the University must now consider the petitioner's claim based on the afore directions, thus leading to WP(C) NO. 17594 OF 2021 7 appropriate action being initiated and completed without any avoidable delay. 12. Resultantly, I order this writ petition to the limited extent of directing the competent Authority of the second respondent to immediately hear the petitioner and to take necessary steps in terms of the directions of the learned Division Bench as approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, including for payment of the unpaid wages, if any and consequential action as is permitted by the applicable Statute. 13. This shall be done as expeditiously as is possible, resulting in necessary payments being effected, if found so eligible, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Needless to say, this Court has not considered any of the other contentions of the petitioner, or that of the University, and all such are left open to be pursued by them appropriately, if it becomes so warranted in future. ## **Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** **JUDGE** stu WP(C) NO. 17594 OF 2021 8 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17594/2021** PETITIONER EXHIBITS - Exhibit P1 TRUE TYPED COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 03.12.2003 - Exhibit P2 EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 20.01.2017 - Exhibit P3 EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 24.06.2019 - Exhibit P4 A LETTER DATED 14.08.2017 FROM THE HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT TO SME ISSUED BY THE CPAS DIRECTOR SUBMIT BIODATA AND WILLINGNESS - Exhibit P5 THE BIO DATA AND WILLINGNESS DULY FILED BY THE PETITIONER SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CPAS DIRECTOR DATED 19.08.2017 - Exhibit P6 CPAS ORDER 29/CPAS/EST/STAFF/2017 (A) DATED 07.01.2019, ENGAGEMENT OF TEACHING FACULTY OF ERSTWHILE SF INSTITUTIONS (SME) OF MG UNIVERSITY UNDER CPAS APPROVED - Exhibit P7 THE REQUEST LETTER FROM THE PETITIONER FOR REGULARIZATION OF SERVICE IN MG UNIVERSITY DATED 24.07.2019 - Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO 6005/10/2/SME/SFI DATED 01.08.2017 - Exhibit P8A PRINTED TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P8 - Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER AND THE - STATEMENT SHOWING DETAILS OF THE RECALCULATION FROM THE REGISTRAR OF MG UNIVERSITY OF THE PETITIONER DATED WP(C) NO. 17594 OF 2021 9 20.01.2018 - Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPUTER GENERATED DETAILS OF THE PENDING SLP (C) NO.30156 OF 2019 - Exhibit P11 COPY OF THE MINUTES 30/CPAS/INCORP/MINUTES/EXE.COMM/2017 (B) GANDHI NAGAR DATED 05.04.2019 - Exhibit P11A TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P11 - Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPUTER GENERATED LETTER OF NOTICE OF TERMINATION FROM SERVICE 4943/2019/CPAS HO DATED 04.08.2021 - Exhibit P13 REQUEST LETTER FORM THE PETITIONER OF CANCELLATION OF TERMINATION ORDER REF4943/2019/CPAS HO (DATED 04.08.2021) 09.08.2021 - Exhibit P14 THE PETITIONERS REQUEST LETTER FOR CONTINUATION OF SERVICE IN SME ALONG WITH THE CLARIFICATION SOUGHT FROM THE HOD, DEPARTMENT OF MHA NO.2178/2019/SME GNR DATED 29.07.2021 - Exhibit P15 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION FOR CONTINUATION OF AFFILIATION WITH APPLICATION REF. NO.CA/202122/302/314/1 - Exhibit P16 TRUE COPY OF REQUEST TO CONTINUE MPH COURSE AT SME GANDHI NAGAR FROM THE PRINCIPAL OF SME TO THE DIRECTOR OF CPAS DATED 3.3.2021 - Exhibit P17 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPUTER GENERATED DETAILS OF THE PENDING SLP (C) NO30156/2019 POSTED TO 19.1.2022 - Exhibit P18 TRUE COPY OF THE ENDORSEMENT BY THE HOD,PRINCIPAL/HEAD OF THE INSTITUTION WP(C) NO. 17594 OF 2021 10 DATED 15.12.2021 REGARDING THE DISSERTATION WORK. Exhibit P19 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT FROM THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA SLP 6378/2020 WITH CONNECTED SLP 30156/19 Exhibit P20 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDERS ISSUED NO.54/CPAS/PARAMEDICAL,INC/KNC/KUHS/REG N/2017-18 DATED 30/1/2019 Exhibit P21 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN UO.NO.5585/SFI/1/2017/ADMN DATED ON 16/9/2017 BY M.G.UNIVERSITY 2ND RESPONDENT RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: Exhibit R1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE SPECIAL RULES Exhibit R1(b) TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THIS RESPONDENT DATED 01.01.2020 Exhibit R1(c) TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE IN ITS MEETING HELD ON 22.01.2021