Dr. Vanaja V vs Mahatma Gandhi University & Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH 2013/21ST PHALGUNA 1934 WP(C).No. 3581 of 2013 (W) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- DR.VANAJA V ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH N.S.S.HINDU COLLEGE CHANGANASSERY (RESIDING AT KRISHNA PRIYA NEAR R.K.MANDIRAM, PERUNNA P.O., CHANGANASSERY PIN - 686 102). BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. MAHATHMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, ATHIRAMPUZHA KOTTAYAM - 686 562. 2. THE VICE CHENCELLOR, - THE MAHATHMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, ATHIRAMPUZHA KOTTAYAM - 686 562. 3. THE MANAGER, - N.S.S.HINDU COLLGE, CHANGANASSERY (SECRETARY N.S.S.CHANGANASSERY)- 686 102. 4. DR.SUJATHA S., ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH N.S.S.HINDU COLLGE, CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM - 686 102. - *5. ALL KERALA PRIVATE COLLEGE TEACHERS ASSOCIATION (AKPCTA) REPRESENTED BY R.MOHANAKRISHNAN SECRETARY, N.S.S. CO-ORDINATION COUNCIL, AKPCTA ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF PHYSICS M.G.COLLEGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. (ADDL.5TH RESPONDENT IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 12.3.2013 IN I.A.NO.2344/2013) BY ADV. SRI.JACOB VARGHESE (SR.) SC, FOR R1 & R2 ADV. SRI.P.G.PARAMESWARA PANICKER FOR R3 ADV. SRI.B.MURALEEDHARAN ADV. SRI.P.K.SURESH KUMAR (SR.) FOR R4 ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP ADV. SRI.SREEKANTH S.NAIR ADV. SRI.P.BIJIMON ADV. SRI.S.MANU FOR ADDL.R5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12-03-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No.3581/2013 APPENDIX ## PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION SENT BY THE PETITIONER DATED 19.06.2012. EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE PRINCIPAL DATED 21.06.2012. EXHIBIT P3. TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE VICE CHANCELLOR. EXHIBIT P4. TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C)NO.26511/2012. EXHIBIT P5. TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 28.01.2013. EXHIBIT P6. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY DATED 01.08.2011. EXHIBIT P7. TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF G.O(P) NO.58/2010/H.EDN. DATED 27.03.2010. ## RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS ANNEXURE R1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE HEARING HELD ON 14.1.2013 BY THE VICE CHANCELLOR AS DIRECTED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C).No.26511/12. ANNEXURE R1(b) TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.25518/C3/10/H.EDN. DT.02/06/2012 ISSUED BY UNDER SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT (FOR PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT) ANNEXURE R1(c) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.CELL.3/22595/2012/COLL. EDN.DT.8/10/2012 ISSUED BY THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION EXHIBIT R3(a) TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 4.11.2011 EXHIBIT R3(b) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12.12.2011 OF THE SECRETARY, NSS COLLEGES CENTRAL COMMITTEE EXHIBIT R3(c) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE PETITIONER DATED 21.3.2012 EXHIBIT R3(d) TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 10.4.2012 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE PRINCIPAL OF THE COLLEGE EXHIBIT R3(e) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26.4.2012 OF THE SECRETARY, NSS COLLEGES CENTRAL COMMITTEE EXHIBIT R3(f) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE PETITIONER ADDRESSED TO THE PRINCIPAL OF THE COLLEGE DATED 23.11.2011 EXHIBIT R3(g) TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE COLLEGE DATED 15.3.2012 EXHIBIT R3(h) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE PETITIONER ADDRESSED TO THE DISTRICT INSURANCE OFFICER DATED 27.9.2011 EXHIBIT R3(i) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE PRINCIPAL OF THE COLLEGE DATED 27.10.2011 TO SMT.ANITHA G.PILLAI EXHIBIT R3(j) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED NIL SUBMITTED BY SMT.ANITHA G.PILLAI TO THE PRINCIPAL OF THE COLLEGE EXHIBIT R3(k) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 27.10.2011 ISSUED BY THE PRINCIPAL OF THE COLLEGE T SMT.SOBHA PANICKER EXHIBIT R3(l) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF SMT.SOBHA PANICKER DATED NIL ISSUED TO THE PRINCIPAL OF THE COLLEGE EXHIBIT R3(m) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 28.10.2011 ISSUED BY THE PRINCIPAL OF THE COLLEGE TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT EXHIBIT R3(n) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 29.10.2011 GIVEN BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PRINCIPAL OF THE COLLEGE EXHIBIT R3(o) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 31.10.2011 ISSUED BY THE PRINCIPAL OF THE COLLEGE TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT EXHIBIT R3(p) TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 5.6.2012 EXHIBIT R3(q) TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 19.6.2012 EXHIBIT R3(r) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20.6.2012 OF THE PRINCIPAL OF THE COLLEGE EXHIBIT R3(s) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 21.6.2012 OF THE SECRETARY OF THE NSS COLLEGES CENTRAL COMMITTEE EXHIBIT R3(t) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 24.8.2012 ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY EXHIBIT R3(u) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 7.11.2012 SENT BY THE SECRETARY OF THE NSS COLLEGES CENTRAL COMMITTEE TO THE REGISTRAR, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY EXHIBIT R4(a) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.7.2008 BY WHICH UNIVERSITY ACCORDED SANCTION TO REDESIGNATE AS READER EXHIBIT R4(b) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 28.10.2011 BY WHICH THE PRINCIPAL TENDERED THE POST OF HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT (ENGLISH) EXHIBIT R4(c) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 28.10.2011 BY WHICH WILLINGNESS IS EXPRESSED IN EXT.R4(b) EXHIBIT R4(d) TRUE COPY OF THE ENTRUSTMENT OF POST OF HOD BY PRINCIPAL DATED 31.10.2011 EXHIBIT R4(e) TRUE COPY OF THE SOLE WRITTEN PAGE OF THE STOCK REGISTER DATED 9.1.2012 |EXHIBIT R4(f)|TRUE COPY OF THE WORK ALLOTMENT REGISTER OF POST| |---|---| ||GRADUATE DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH| |EXHIBIT R4(g)|TRUE COPY OF THE TIME TABLE WAS SET BY THE| ||PETITIONER FOR 2012-2013| |EXHIBIT R4(h)|TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LAB| |EXHIBIT R4(i)|TRUE COPY OF THE BROUCHURE OF WOMEN EMPOWERMENT| ||PROGRAMME| |EXHIBIT R4(j)|TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY PRINCIPAL| ||REGARDING THE OPTIMUM AND PROPER UTILISATION OF UGC| ||FUNDS| /TRUE COPY/ VPS PA TO JUDGE ## **P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.** ## **--------------------------W.P.(C) No.3581 OF 2013 -------------------------Dated this the 12[th] day of March, 2013** ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioner, who is the seniormost Associate Professor in the Department of English in N.S.S. Hindu College, Changanacherry, an aided college affiliated to the Mahatma Gandhi University, has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P5 letter dated 28.1.2013 sent by the Registrar of the Mahatma Gandhi University to the petitioner informing her that Dr.Sujatha has legitimate claim to continue as the Head of the Department of English. The petitioner also seeks a declaration that being the seniormost Associate Professor in the Department of English, she is entitled to be the Head of the Department of English. The brief facts of the case are as follows: 2. The petitioner entered service as Junior Lecturer in NSS College, Manjeri on 26.9.1979. She was promoted as Lecturer (Senior Scale) with effect from 26.9.1987 and as Lecturer (Selection Grade) with effect from 26.9.1995. She was awarded the Doctoral degree on 31.5.2004. Pursuant to the implementation of the 6[th] UGC pay revision scheme with effect from 1.1.2006, the petitioner was placed in the scale of pay of Associate Professor. 3. The petitioner's date of birth is 30.7.1956. She attained the WPC No.3581/2013 2 age of 55 years on 4.7.2011. As per rule 60 of Part I of the Kerala Service Rules as it then stood, she could have continued in service only till 31.3.2012. The petitioner had submitted her pension papers on the basis that she would retire from service on 31.3.2012. She had also applied for leave preparatory to retirement for a period of 82 days from 9.1.2012 to 31.3.2012. A copy of the leave application is produced as Ext.R3(a) along with the counter affidavit dated 18.2.2013 filed by the third respondent. The petitioner had in column 14 thereof stated that she is availing leave prior to retirement. The leave applied for by the petitioner was granted and she left for the United States of America. Even earlier, before the petitioner proceeded on leave preparatory to retirement, the Principal, NSS Hindu College, Changanacherry had sent Ext.R3(i) letter dated 27.10.2011 to Smt.Anitha G Pillai, the next seniormost Associate Professor in the Department of English in NSS Hindu College, Changanacherry informing her that the petitioner is due to retire from service on 31.3.2012, that she has applied for leave prior to retirement and that being the seniormost teacher, she is requested to give her willingness in writing to take up the charge of the Head of the Department. Smt.Anitha G Pillai declined to take up the charge of the Head of the Department by submitting Ext.R3(j) letter dated WPC No.3581/2013 3 27.10.2011. The Principal thereupon sent Ext.R3(k) letter dated 27.10.2011 to Smt.Sobha Panicker, the next seniormost Associate Professor in the Department of English in NSS Hindu College, Changanacherry. Smt.Sobha Panicker also declined to take up the charge of the Head of the Department by submitting Ext.R3(l) letter dated 27.10.2011. Thereupon, the Principal sent Ext.R3(m) letter to Dr.S.Sujatha (the fourth respondent herein) the next seniormost Associate Professor seeking her willingness to take up the charge of Head of the Department. The fourth respondent was designated as Reader by the Mahatma Gandhi University by Ext.R4(a) order dated 30.7.2008 with effect from 2.12.2005. The said order was issued at a point of time when she was working as Lecturer (Selection Grade) in the Department of English in NSS Hindu College, Changanacherry. The fourth respondent accepted the offer and in turn sent Ext.R3(n) letter dated 29.10.2011 expressing willingness to take up the charge of the Head of the Department. The Principal in turn sent Ext.R3(o) letter dated 31.10.2011 entrusting charge of the Head of the Department of English from 7.1.2012 onwards with the fourth respondent. 4. After the petitioner entered on leave and left India, the Government amended rule 60 of Part I of the Kerala Service Rules, WPC No.3581/2013 4 dispensed with the unification of the age of retirement and stipulated that all Government employees and teachers including teachers of aided colleges and schools will retire from service on attaining the age of 56 years. The result of the amendment was that the petitioner became eligible to continue in service, till the end of the academic year 2012-2013 namely, 31.3.2013. The petitioner thereupon submitted Ext.R3(c) letter dated 21.3.2012 to the Educational Secretary, NSS Colleges Central Committee, Changanacherry seeking extension of the leave from 1.4.2012 to 30.4.2012 suffixing the month of May, 2012. She also stated therein that she wishes to join duty on 1.6.2012. Along with the said letter, she submitted Ext.R3(d) application in the prescribed form for extension of the leave from 1.4.2012 to 30.4.2012 suffixing the semester vacation from 1.5.2012 to 31.5.2012. That request was granted by the Secretary, NSS Colleges Central Committee, Changanacherry on 26.4.2012. The petitioner thus continued on leave till 31.5.2012. 5. After the expiry of the leave, the petitioner rejoined duty on 1.6.2012. On 4.6.2012 she requested the Principal to handover the charge of the Department of English to her. The Principal in turn sent a letter dated 4.6.2012 (though a copy thereof is not produced, the said fact is admitted) informing her that she may take up charge of the WPC No.3581/2013 5 Department of English after stock verification and issuance of verification report to him so as to issue a No Dues Certificate to the fourth respondent, the then Head of the Department of English. On coming to know of it, the fourth respondent submitted Ext.R3(p) representation dated 5.6.2012 to the Principal, NSS Hindu College, Changanacherry wherein she raised a contention that under the Mahatma Gandhi University Ordinances Regarding Work Load and Staff Pattern of Teaching Staff, which came into force with effect from 11.5.1994, as the only Reader in the Department of English, she is entitled to be appointed as Head of the Department of English. She requested the Principal of the College to permit her to continue as Head of the Department of English. In that letter she stated that she is the only Reader in the Department of English. 6. When nothing was heard in the matter, the petitioner submitted Ext.P1 representation dated 19.6.2012 to the Secretary, NSS Colleges' Central Committee, Changanacherry requesting him to look into the matter and to give instructions to the Principal to act without delay in giving charge of the Head of the Department of English to her. The Principal thereupon sent Ext.R3(r) letter dated 20.6.2012 to the Secretary, NSS Colleges' Central Committee, Changanacherry wherein after referring to clause 4(a)(ii) of the WPC No.3581/2013 6 Mahatma Gandhi University Ordinances Regarding Work Load and Staff Pattern of Teaching Staff, he requested the Secretary, NSS Colleges' Central Committee to accord sanction to the fourth respondent to continue as Head of the Department as she is the only Reader in the Department of English. In that letter, the Principal also stated that the petitioner has only ten months to retire and therefore it is not advisable to make a change for a short period since such a change would adversely affect the smooth functioning of the Department of English. The Secretary, NSS Colleges' Central Committee in turn sent Ext.R3(s) letter dated 21.6.2012 to the Principal of the College informing him that the fourth respondent is the teacher eligible to be appointed as Head of the Department and therefore, petitioner’s request cannot be granted. The Principal was instructed to inform the petitioner immediately. The Principal of the college in turn sent Ext.P2 letter dated 21.6.2012 to the petitioner informing her that her request to be put in charge of the Head of the Department of English cannot be granted. The petitioner thereupon submitted Ext.P3 representation dated 2.7.2012 to the Vice Chancellor of the Mahatma Gandhi University wherein she contended that ever since 2004 she is the Head of the Department of English and on rejoining duty after the expiry of the leave, she is entitled to be put in charge of the Head of the WPC No.3581/2013 7 Department. 7. Upon receipt of the said representation, the Registrar of the Mahatma Gandhi University sent Ext.R3(t) letter dated 24.8.2012 to the Principal of the college wherein the University took the stand that with the implementation of the new UGC Regulations of 2010, the designation of Reader was abolished and therefore the fourth respondent’s claim cannot stand. By that letter, the Registrar of University called upon the Principal of the college to offer the views of the college. The Secretary, NSS Colleges' Central Committee thereupon sent Ext.R3(u) letter dated 7.11.2012 reiterating the contention that the Mahatma Gandhi University Ordinances Regarding Work Load and Staff Pattern of Teaching Staff has not been amended or cancelled, that it applies in the matter of appointment of the Head of the Department and therefore, the fourth respondent’s appointment as the Head of the Department is in order. The petitioner thereafter filed W.P.(C).No.26511 of 2012 in this Court wherein she inter alia sought an order directing the Vice Chancellor of the Mahatma Gandhi University to consider Ext.P3 representation and pass orders thereon within a time limit to be fixed by this Court. By Ext.P4 judgment delivered on 16.11.2012, this Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the Vice Chancellor of the Mahatma Gandhi University to WPC No.3581/2013 8 consider Ext.P4 representation (a copy of which is produced and marked as Ext.P3 in the instant writ petition) in accordance with law after affording the petitioner as also the fourth respondent an opportunity of being heard expeditiously and in any event within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The Vice Chancellor heard the petitioner and the fourth respondent on 14.1.2013 and issued Annexure R1(a) proceedings dated 23.1.2013. The Vice Chancellor held that the fourth respondent is entitled to continue as the Head of the Department and a stop gap arrangement may not be suitable for the smooth functioning of the department in the midst of the academic year. He also directed that the status quo should be maintained. The said decision was communicated to the petitioner by the Registrar of the Mahatma Gandhi University by Ext.P5 letter dated 28.1.2013. Hence this writ petition challenging Ext.P5 and seeking the following reliefs: _“(i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction to quash Exhibit P5._ _(ii) Declare that the petitioner being the senior most teacher-Associate Professor-in the department of English she is entitled to hold the post of Head of Department of English and not permitting the petitioner to function as Head of Department is highly unjust and illegal.”_ 8. The principal contention raised in the writ petition is that the WPC No.3581/2013 9 fourth respondent was given charge of the Head of the Department only as a stop gap arrangement and the petitioner who was the Head of the Department since 2004 and who is the seniormost Associate Professor, is entitled to be given charge of the Head of the Department, when she rejoined duty on 1.6.2012, on expiry of the leave availed by her. It is contended that the post of Head of the Department is a pivotal post, that the fourth respondent attended the college only for 10 days in June, 5 days in July, 1 day in August, 4 days in September, 3[1/2] days in October and therefore it is evident that she does not show any interest in academic matters. The petitioner has also avererred in paragraph 13 of the writ petition that the fourth respondent is none other than the daughter of the General Secretary of the Nair Service Society which manages the college, that the fourth respondent is also a nominated member of the Syndicate of the Mahatma Gandhi University and therefore, it is clear that extraneous considerations weighed with the Principal of the college and the Vice Chancellor of the Mahatma Gandhi University in deciding the issue in favor of the fourth respondent. Relying on Ext.P7 Government order dated 27.3.2010 and Ext.P6 University order dated 1.8.2011 it is contended that the post of Reader is presently not in existence in affiliated colleges, that the posts available are Associate Professor, WPC No.3581/2013 10 Assistant Professor and Professor, that the fourth respondent, who is also an Associate Professor, is junior to the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be the Head of the Department. 9. A statement dated 12.2.2013 has been filed on behalf of the Mahatma Gandhi University and its Vice Chancellor wherein, relying on clause 4(a)(ii) of the Mahatma Gandhi University Ordinances Regarding Work Load and Staff Pattern of Teaching Staff, it is contended that if available, the seniormost Reader shall be the head of a Post Graduate Department, that though the UGC regulations contemplate only the post of Associate Professor which is equivalent to a Reader/Lecturer Selection Grade, the Mahatma Gandhi University has not yet started the re-designation of incumbent Readers/Lecturers Selection Grade, but the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education has redesignated the incumbent Readers/Lecturers Selection Grade as Associate Professor for the purpose of fixation of pay under the UGC scheme. It is stated that it was inevitable for the Principal to appoint a suitable person as Head of the Department since the petitioner had entered on leave, that the Principal called for the willingness of two seniormost teachers, both of whom declined and therefore the fourth respondent, the next seniormost, was requested to take charge of the Head of the Department of English. WPC No.3581/2013 11 10. The third respondent has sworn to a counter affidavit dated 18.2.2013 wherein it is stated that the petitioner had submitted pension papers to the Principal of the College along with Ext.R3(f) letter dated 23.11.2011 for onward transmission to the Director of Collegiate Education, wherein she had agreed to forward her pension papers to the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education only after getting her leave sanctioned and salary for the month of January, 2012 is paid, that she had also submitted an application to the competent authority for payment of the amount standing to her credit in the Provident Fund Account, that the competent authority sanctioned the sum of Rs.17,49,914/- and the petitioner received it from the college on 15.3.2012 and that she had also submitted an application dated 27.9.2011 to the District Insurance Officer, Kottayam to release the amounts standing to her credit under the State Life Insurance Policy. In paragraph 22 of the counter affidavit it is stated that the Mahatma Gandhi University Ordinances Regarding Work Load and Staff Pattern of Teaching Staff is still in force, that there is no post of cadre Professor in any of the departments in the private colleges in the State of Kerala and as per clause 4(a)(ii) of the Mahatma Gandhi University Ordinances Regarding Workload and Staff Pattern of Teaching Staff, a Reader if available has to be given charge as the head of the Post WPC No.3581/2013 12 Graduate Department and that inter-se seniority among the teachers is not the criterion for giving charge as the Head of a Post Graduate Department. Various other related contentions are also raised in the counter affidavit. In paragraph 26 of the counter affidavit it is stated that clause 6.1.11 of Ext.P7 Government order discloses that Reader/Lecturer (Selection Grade) in service at present shall continue to be designated as Lecturer (Selection Grade) or Reader, as the case may be, until they are placed in the pay band of Rs.37,400-67,000/and re-designated as Associate Professor in the manner prescribed in clause 6.1.10, that the authorization given by the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education relates only to the payment of salary of teachers as per UGC Regulations, 2010, that the Mahatma Gandhi University is the competent authority to approve the re-designation of teachers as Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and Professor in terms of the UGC Regulations, 2010 and therefore, there is no merit in the contention that the post of Reader stands abolished in view of the UGC Regulations, 2010. 11. The fourth respondent has sworn to a counter affidavit dated 24.2.2013 reiterating the contentions raised by the Manager of the college. She has in paragraph 8 thereof contended relying on clause 4(a)(ii) of the Mahatma Gandhi University Ordinances Regarding WPC No.3581/2013 13 Workload and Staff Pattern of Teaching Staff that as the only Reader in the Post graduate department of English, she is entitled to preference over the petitioner in the matter of placement as Head of the Department. In paragraph 10 she has stated that the activities of the department would reach its peak during the period from January to March, that it takes in the concluding session of the academic year and that work allotment of teachers, assignment of charge to conduct examination, completion of projects, holding of seminars, logical conclusion of assignments, consolidation of the internal marks of students are to be done during January to March. In paragraphs 15 to 17 of the counter affidavit she has also referred to the steps taken by her to improve the functioning of the department after she was given charge of the Head of the Department. In paragraph 3 she has raised the contention that that she was appointed as Head of the Department on a regular basis, that it was not a stop gap arrangement and therefore, the petitioner has no right to claim the post of the Head of the Department and the denial of the same does not visit her with any adverse civil consequences. It is stated that as there is no infringement of any legal right, the petitioner cannot maintain an action under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 12. I heard Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, learned counsel appearing for WPC No.3581/2013 14 the petitioner, Sri.Jacob Varghese, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Mahatma Gandhi University, Sri.P.G.Parameswara Panicker, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the third respondent, Sri.P.K.Suresh Kumar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the fourth respondent and Sri.S.Manu, learned counsel appearing for the All Kerala Private College Teachers Association, which has filed I.A.No.2344 of 2013 seeking impleadment as additional fifth respondent in the writ petition. Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was the Head of the Department from 2004 onwards, that the fourth respondent was given charge of the Head of the Department only as a stop gap arrangement when she proceeded on leave preparatory to retirement, that later, on account of the enhancement of the age of retirement, the retirement of the petitioner did not take place, that she therefore applied for and was granted extension of the leave till 31.5.2012 and rejoined duty on 1.6.2012, that the Principal of the college thereupon informed her by letter dated 4.6.2012 that she may take up charge of the Head of the Department after stock verification and issuance of the verification report, but later, on account of extraneous considerations, the fourth respondent, who is none other than the daughter of the Secretary of the Nair Service Society, the WPC No.3581/2013 15 educational agency which has established the college, the Principal did not take any action. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended relying on clause 81(b)(i) of the Mahatma Gandhi University Statutes, that she is entitled to be the Head of the Department of English or the Post Graduate department as the case may be, that a Division Bench of this Court has in **Jyothi Mariam John (Dr.) v. Union Christian College and Others (** 2012 (3) ILR 155) has held that in the absence of Professors, the seniormost Lecturer is entitled to be appointed as Head of the Department and therefore the petitioner, who is the seniormost Associate Professor and was the Head of the Department for a period of 8 years till 8.1.2012 was entitled to be put back in charge as the Head of the Department when she rejoined duty on 1.6.2012 on the expiry of the leave. Relying on Ext.P6 University order, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the post of Reader has ceased to exist and therefore the fourth respondent cannot contend for the position that she being a Reader, is entitled to be given charge of the Head of the Department. 13. Per contra, Sri.Jacob Varghese, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Mahatma Gandhi University Sri.P.G.Parameswara Panicker, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the third respondent Manager and Sri.P.K.Suresh Kumar, learned Senior Advocate WPC No.3581/2013 16 appearing for the fourth respondent contended that the petitioner who left the college on leave preparatory to retirement and would have retired from service on 31.3.2012 but for the enhancement of the age of retirement, cannot, merely for the reason that she rejoined duty as the retirement did not take place, assail the decision taken by the Principal to give charge of the Head of the Department to the fourth respondent. The learned counsel contended that in the Mahatma Gandhi University Ordinances Regarding Work Load and Staff Pattern of Teaching Staff it is stipulated therein that if available the seniormost Reader shall be the Head of the Department, that the fourth respondent was designated as Reader by Ext.R4(a) order dated 30.7.2008, that the redesignation contemplated in Ext.P7 Government order has not so far taken effect and therefore, as the only Reader in the English Department in NSS Hindu College, the fourth respondent is entitled to be the Head of the Department. Sri.S.Manu, learned counsel appearing for the All Kerala Private College Teachers Association, which has filed I.A.2344 of 2013 to get itself impleaded as the additional fifth respondent in the writ petition, submitted that the practice in the management was to appoint the seniormost teacher as the Head of the Department and if that is not adhered to, it will lead to disharmony among the teachers, thereby affecting the welfare of the WPC No.3581/2013 17 institution and the students. 14. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel on either side. I have also gone through the pleadings and the materials on record. It is evident from the facts set out above that the dispute raised in the instant writ petition would not have arisen but for the fact that after the petitioner submitted her pension papers and availed leave preparatory to retirement from service which event would have taken place on 31.3.2012, the Government enhanced the age of retirement of Government servants and teachers of aided schools and colleges from 55 years to 56 years. It is evident from the materials produced by the respondents, more particularly the third respondent, that the leave applied for by the petitioner was leave preparatory to retirement. After rule 60 of the Kerala Service Rules was amended with effect from 26.3.2012, she expressed her intention to rejoin duty on 1.6.2012 after extending the leave from 1.4.2012 to 31.5.2012. The extension of leave applied for by the petitioner was granted and she rejoined duty on 1.6.2012. It is also not in dispute that the Principal of the college had thereafter sent a letter dated 4.6.2012 informing her that she may take up charge of the Head of the Department after stock verification and issuance of the verification report so as to issue a no dues certificate to the fourth respondent. WPC No.3581/2013 18 That did not take place on account of the reasons set out above and ultimately the Vice Chancellor of the University held that the fourth respondent is entitled to be the Head of the Department. Ext.R(i) and Ext.R3(k) letters disclose that before the fourth respondent has given charge as the Head of the Department, the willingness of two seniormost Associate Professors had been sought, that they declined to take charge of the Head of the Department for personal reasons and it was thereafter that the fourth respondent's willingness was sought and she gave her consent, as can be seen from Ext.R3(m) and Ext.R3 (n) letters. The fourth respondent was given charge of Head of the Department with effect from 7.1.2012 by Ext.R3(o) letter dated 31.10.2011. Pursuant to the said arrangement, she took charge of the Head of the Department from the petitioner on 8.1.2012, when the petitioner entered on leave preparatory to retirement. That state of affairs has been in existence for the past more than one year. As matters now stand, the petitioner who has attained the age of superannuation namely 56 years on 4.7.2012 will retire from service in view of the stipulations contained in rule 60(c)(i) of the Kerala Service Rules on 31.3.2013, within another 18 days. In such circumstances, having regard to the fact that the academic year is coming to an end and the examinations are in progress, I am of the opinion that the WPC No.3581/2013 19 status quo as it now obtains does not merit interference as it would affect the functioning of the Department of English. Though the petitioner has averred that the fourth respondent was seldom attending classes in the college and the fourth respondent has in her counter affidavit virtually admitted it, the fact remains that as the Head of the Department she had taken initiative and established a reference library for Post Graduate students and also various other facilities which are referred to in detail in paragraphs 15, 16 and 17 of her counter affidavit. In such circumstances, as the petitioner would retire in another 18 days, I am of the opinion that it would not be in the interests of the institution to unsettle the state of affairs obtaining since 8.1.2012 and to direct the Principal to give charge of the Head of the Department of English to the petitioner, the seniormost Associate Professor. The Head of the Department is not paid any additional allowances for being the Head of the Department. The Head of the Department has only additional duties and responsibilities in addition to the duties and responsibilities that any other teacher has. Therefore the mere fact that the petitioner is not permitted to function as the Head of the Department, would not result in any pecuniary loss to the petitioner or visit her with adverse civil consequences. The petitioner's pensionary benefits would also not be effected. I am WPC No.3581/2013 20 therefore of the opinion that no interference is called for with the impugned order. I accordingly decline jurisdiction and dismiss the writ petition. The parties are directed to bear their respective costs. **P.N.RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE)** vps WPC No.3581/2013 21