State of Kerala v. Dr. Lata Marina Varghese & Matama Gandhi University & The Manager St. Thomas College

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH** **MONDAY ,THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 24TH POUSHA, 1940** **W.A.No. 1842 of 2018** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 3721/2018 of HIGH COURT** ## **APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1, 2 & 5 IN WP(C):** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001** - **2 THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION DIRECTORATE OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 033** - **3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, NEAR FIRE STATION, VAYASKARA KUNNU, KOTTYAM-686 001 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. A.J. VARGHESE** ## **RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 3 & 4 IN W.P.(C):** - **1 DR. LATA MARINA VARGHESE (PRINCIPAL, ST. THOMAS COLLEGE, RANNY). W/O. REV. IDICULLA CHANDY, MANAYATHIL, PULLOOPRAM P.O., RANNY, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 674.** - **2 MATAMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY REP.BY ITS REGISTRAR, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM-6865 560** - **3 THE MANAGER ST.THOMAS COLLEGE, PAZHAVANGADI P.O., RANNY, PATHANAMTHITTA-689 673** **BY ADVS. SRI.ASOK M. CHERIAN, SC, M.G. UNIVERSITY SRI.K.B.GANGESH** W.A.1842/2017 2 ## **SMT.TINA ALEX THOMAS SRI.ROSHEN.D.ALEXANDER** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.01.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **JUDGMENT** ## K. Surendra Mohan, J. The State is in appeal challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge finally disposing of W.P.(C) No. 3721 of 2018. As per judgment dated 6.2.2018, the learned Single Judge has directed the second respondent University to take up the proposal for approval of appointment of the first respondent and to pass appropriate orders in the matter of grant of approval to the same, in accordance with law. In case approval was granted, there is a further direction to communicate the orders to the third appellant for confirmation and disbursal of benefits. W.A.1842/2017 3 2. The first respondent is a person who was appointed as a Lecturer on 3.10.1989, promoted as Associate Professor in 2008 and as Head of the Department of English at Baselious College in the year 2015. She was selected and appointed by direct recruitment on 30.8.2017 as Principal of St. Thomas College, Ranny. However, the proposal for approval of her appointment was returned by the University for want of sufficient documents. It is stated that, the proposal had been resubmitted with all the necessary details but that, no orders had been passed in the matter thereafter. It was complaining of inaction on the part of the University that the first respondent had approached this Court by filing the writ petition. 3. The learned Single Judge considered the matter and disposed of the writ petition itself, directing the University to pass appropriate orders within a period of six weeks of the W.A.1842/2017 4 date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The State is aggrieved by the said direction. 4. According to Adv. A.J. Varghese, the Senior Government Pleader who appears for the appellants, the College concerned is governed by the terms of the Direct Payment Agreement to which they are parties. In the agreement, the College had agreed to include a Government nominee in the Selection Committee to be constituted for selection and appointment of Principal. Mahatma Gandhi University Statutes, 1997 is relied upon to point out that the provisions therein also requires the Selection Committee to be constituted with a Government nominee. It is contended that, in the Selection Committee that has selected the first respondent, no Government nominee was included. Since the Government is the pay master, it is contended that, the Government ought to have had a say in the matter of selection W.A.1842/2017 5 of the first respondent. Since the Committee was not properly constituted, it is contended that the appointment could not be approved. 5. Adv. Asok M. Cherian appears for the University. According to the learned counsel, it is the provisions of the University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Other Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations, 2010 that are applicable to the selection and appointment of Principals in aided Colleges. As per the UGC Regulations, no Government nominee is necessary to be part of the Selection Committee. It was for the said reason that, no Government nominee was included in the Selection Committee. In the absence of any infirmity in the constitution of the Selection Committee, the University has issued an order evidenced in W.A.1842/2017 6 this appeal by Annexure I dated 26.5.2018 granting approval to the appointment of the first respondent. According to the learned Standing Counsel, the University has therefore complied with the directions of the learned Single Judge. 6. According to Adv. Roshan D Alexander who appears for the first respondent, in Radhakrishnan Pillai v. Travancore Devaswom Board (2016 (2) K.L.T. 245 (FB)), a Full Bench of this Court has held that the University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Other Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations, 2010 ( hereinafter referred to as the UGC Regulations, 2010, for short) was applicable irrespective of whether the University Acts have been suitably amended in line with the UGC Regulations or not. Therefore, going by the Full Bench, it was not necessary for the Selection W.A.1842/2017 7 Committee to have been constituted in accordance with the University Statutes on which reliance is placed by the learned Senior Government Pleader. Apart from the above, it is pointed out that, pursuant to the adoption of the UGC Regulations, 2010 by the Government, the University has issued an order dated 25.7.2016 evidenced in the writ petition by Ext.P1, specifying the manner in which the Selection Committee for selection of Principals in private aided colleges should be constituted. The Selection Committee that conducted the selection of the first respondent was constituted in accordance with Ext.P1. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, there was no defect in the constitution of the Selection Committee as alleged. 7. Having considered the respective contentions advanced before us, we find no infirmity in the judgment appealed against warranting an interference therewith. The W.A.1842/2017 8 contentions advanced before us by the learned Senior Government Pleader all relate to the manner in which the Selection Committee that conducted the selection of the first respondent was constituted. It is contended that, the Committee ought to have been constituted in accordance with the University Statutes. However, in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in Radhakrishnan Pillai v. Travancore Devaswom Board (supra) the provisions of the UGC Regulations, 2010 have been held to be applicable to the University even in the absence of amendments to the University Statutes. Accepting the position of law declared by the Full Bench, the University has issued Ext.P1 order specifying the manner in which the Selection Committee was to be constituted. Therefore, we find no substance in the contention put forward that the Selection Committee ought to have been constituted in accordance with the provisions of the W.A.1842/2017 9 University Statutes. 8. Apart from the above, what the learned Single Judge has only directed the University to consider the proposal and to pass necessary orders thereon in accordance with law on the question as to whether the appointment could be approved or not. As per Annexure I, such approval has also been granted. Since the direction of the learned Single Judge was only to pass orders in accordance with law, we do not find any grounds to interfere with the same in law. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. **Sd/-** **K.SURENDRA MOHAN** **JUDGE** **Sd/-** **N.NAGARESH JUDGE** sb W.A.1842/2017 10 ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** ## **ANNEXURE I** **A TRUE COPY OF THE ABOVE ORDER DATED 26.05.2018 ISSUED BY THE M.G.UNIVERSITY** //True copy// Sd/P.S. To Judge