W.P.(C) Nos. 26454/2006 & 27024/2006 (Sunithakumari T.K. v. Registrar, MG University)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: K.M. Joseph
Judgment Date: 2007-02-28
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petitions allowed; Ext.P5 quashed; University directed to undertake fresh selection in accordance with law at the earliest.
Final Disposition: Allowed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Sunithakumari T.K.

Respondents

The Registrar, Mahatma Gandhi University, Priyadarshini Hills P.O., Kottayam-686560
M.G. University, represented by Registrar, Priyadarshini Hills P.O., Kottayam-686560
Dr. A.M. Unnikrishnan, Ganga Theertham, Thiruvananthapuram-695002

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• K.V. Bhadra Kumari

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. V.A. Muhammed, SC, M.G.University
• Sri. O.V. Radhakrishnan (Sr.)

Case Synopsis & Summary

Two connected writ petitions challenge the University’s handling of vacancies and appointments for the post of Lecturer in Malayalam at Mahatma Gandhi University. The petitioner in WP(C) 26454/2006, Sunithakumari T.K., who holds an M.A. in Malayalam and a B.Ed., is a Scheduled Caste candidate eligible to apply. The University published Ext.P4 notifying a single post; a selection list was prepared and Dr. Jose K. Manual joined as Lecturer. After Dr. K.C. Kurian voluntarily retired on 14.12.2006, a fresh vacancy emerged, and the University reportedly considered appointing the second-ranked candidate from the prior list. The petitioner later amended the petition and produced Ext.P5, appointing Dr. A.M. Unnikrishnan. In WP(C) 27024/2006, another petitioner—teaching in a college at Mahe—claims a similar situation where a vacancy notified for one post was used to appoint another person, violating the notified scope of the vacancy and the principle of equality under Articles 14 and 16. Counter affidavits state there was no challenge to the selection process, maintain that vacancies arising due to retirement can be filled, and rely on policy/ emergency decisions to justify Ext.P5 and the one-year validity of the rank list. The court ultimately held Ext.P5 to be unsustainable, quashed it in both petitions, and directed a fresh selection in accordance with law, acknowledging major authorities on emergency fills but safeguarding constitutional equality.

Provisions of Law Cited

Constitution of India - Articles 14, 16

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Principle of equality before the law (Articles 14 and 16)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners argued that the University notified only one post, and after a retirement created an additional vacancy, the University had no basis to fill a vacancy beyond the notified one. Ext.P5 appointing the third respondent is illegal and violates Articles 14 and 16; the rank-list validity for only one year and the lack of a lawful basis for extending the vacancy are central issues. They urged a strict adherence to the notification and the principle of equality in recruitment.

Contentions of Respondents

The University contends there was a vacancy arising from retirement and that emergency policy decisions permit filling vacancies beyond the originally notified post. It asserts no challenge to the selection procedure itself and defends the one-year rank-list validity. Cites Prem Singh v. Haryana SEB and Hooda to justify policy-based emergency filling; argues Ext.P5 was a valid administrative action within the permissible scope of recruitment practice.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Prem Singh v. Haryana SEB	1996 (4) SCC 319	Positive	Court cites and follows Prem Singh to support the possibility of filling vacancies by emergency policy decisions.
Virender S. Hooda v. State of Haryana	1999 (3) SCC 696	Mentioned Only	Cited as authority but not elaborated or directly applied in the ruling.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT :** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH** ## **WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH FEBRUARY 2007 / 9TH PHALGUNA 1928** **WP(C).No. 26454 of 2006(Y)** **-------------------------------------PETITIONER:** - **-------------------** **SUNITHAKUMARI.T.K., THOPPIL HOUSE, ANAKULAM P.O., ASOKA-685 591, IDUKKI DT.** **BY ADV. SMT.K.V.BHADRA KUMARI** **RESPONDENT:** **-----------------------** **THE REGISTRAR, MAHATHMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 560.** ## ***ADDL.R2 & R3 ARE IMPLEADED:** - **R2. M.G.UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY REGISTRAR, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS P.O., KOTTAYAM – 686 560.** **R3. DR. A.M.UNNIKRISHNAN, GANGA THEERTHAM, T.C. 47/1388, DURGA NAGAR, KARAMANA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 002.** **(ADDL.R2 & R3 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD. 9/11/2006 IN I.A. NO.15346/2006)** **BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY for R1 & R2 SRI.O.V.RADHAKRISHNAN (SR.) for R3** **SMT.K.RADHAMANI AMMA** - **SRI.ANTONY MUKKATH** **SRI.K.V.JOY** **SRI.K.RAMACHANDRAN (THYKOODAM)** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/02/2007 ALONG WITH WPC NO. 27024 OF 2006, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **WPC.NO.26454/2006 Y** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXT.P1: COPY OF THE M.A. DEGREE (PROVISIONAL) CERTIFICATE. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE B.Ed. CERTIFICATE. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE UGC CERTIFICATE. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED IN THE NEWSPAPERS. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT DTD. 11/10/2006.** **/TRUE COPY/** ## **KSS** ## **WPC.NO.26454/2006 Y** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXT.P1: COPY OF THE M.A. DEGREE (PROVISIONAL) CERTIFICATE. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE B.Ed. CERTIFICATE. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE UGC CERTIFICATE. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED IN THE NEWSPAPERS.** ## **K.M.JOSEPH, J.** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WP.(C) Nos.26454 & 27024/2006 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 28[th] day of February, 2007 ## **JUDGMENT** Both these writ petitions being connected, they are disposed of by a common judgment. 2. Case of the petitioner in W.P.(C)26454 of 2006 is as follows: Petitioner is having M.A. Degree in Malayalam with B.Ed., and passed NET and belongs to Scheduled Caste and qualified to apply for the post of Lecturer in Malayalam. Respondent University notified one post of Lecturer in Malayalam vide Ext.P4 notification. Selection list was prepared and one Dr. Jose K. Manual joined duty as Lecturer. On 14.12.2006 one Dr. K.C. Kurian voluntarily retired from the service of the University creating a fresh vacancy and that vacancy was reported to the University in September, 2006, and it is the case of the petitioner that the University is considering to appoint rank No.2 in the select list prepared for the post notified earlier. Subsequently the petitioner has amended the writ petition and produced Ext.P5 order by which the additional third respondent was appointed as Lecturer in Malayalam. 3. In W.P.(C) 27024 of 2006, the case of the petitioner is that he WPCs.26454 & 27024/06. 2 is teaching in a college at Mahe and she applied to be appointed as Lecturer in Malayalam. The very same allegation is raised, namely, that one vacancy is notified and there was selection in which petitioner was interviewed and list was prepared, in which he is ranked No.3. Reference is also made to the vacancy which had arisen as a result of the voluntary retirement of Dr.K.C. Kurian and Ext.P5 is the appointment order given to Dr. A.M.Unnikrishnan. It is submitted that the case of the petitioners in both these cases is that there is only one post notified and there was no basis for the University to proceed to fill up another vacancy if the post notified was already filled up by making appointment from the select list prepared pursuant to Ext.P1 notification, the purport of which was to fill up only one post. 4. Counter affidavits have been filed. The stand of the University would appear to be that there is no challenge to the process of selection, which has culminated in Dr. A.M.Unnikrishnan being placed in the second rank. There is also no challenge against the fixation of the period of the rank list for one year. It is also pointed out that it is a teaching post and as and when vacancy arose, the person WPCs.26454 & 27024/06. 3 who was duly selected and placed as No.2 was appointed. There is no violation. 5. Sri. O.V.Radhakrishnan, Senior Counsel would contend that the additional third respondent was appointed against a vacancy which originally existed as on the date of the notification and therefore there is no illegality in appointing him. According to the third respondent the vacancy arose on 15.12.2005. 6. Reliance is placed on the decision reported in **Prem Singh v. Haryana SEB** ((1996) 4 SCC 319), wherein it was held that it may be open to the State, by policy decision taken in emergency, to fill up the vacancies. He also relies on the decision reported in **Virender S. Hooda v. State of Haryana** ((1999) 3 SCC 696). The party respondent also contends that it is competent for the University to fix the validity for one year. 7. Even treating the vacancy as having arisen on 15.12.2005, in the notification only one post is notified and that post, which is notified has been filled up by appointing a person. It cannot be treated as an emergency as to warrant departure from the principle that University WPCs.26454 & 27024/06. 4 cannot fill up vacancies in excess of that which is notified thus undermining principle of equality under Articles 14 and 16. 8. As far as the petitioner W.P.(C) 26454 of 2006 is concerned, she is a person who had not participated in the earlier selection process. It may be true that the petitioner in the other writ petition may have participated in the selection and he is rank No.3 also. There is no case for the University that the petitioner in W.P.(C) 27024 of 2006 is ineligible because he participated in the earlier selection. I have elaborately considered this question in W.P.(C) 3625 of 2007. I would follow the said decision and therefore in such circumstances I find that the writ petitions are only to be allowed. Accordingly the writ petitions are allowed and Ext.P5 in both the writ petitions are quashed and the University is directed to undertake the selection in accordance with law at the earliest. (K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE) sb ## K.M.JOSEPH, JJ. - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A. No. OF - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## **JUDGMENT** Dated this the day of February, 2006.