IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 7TH ASHADHA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 18290 OF 2022
PETITIONERS:
1 LEKSHMI .R., AGED 39 YEARS, W/O. DR. RAJAKRISHNAN R.,
GULMOHAR, KLRA-35A, KUNNEL LANE, MUNDAKKAL,
KOLLAM - 691001.
2 DR. VIDYA J., AGED 38 YEARS
DR. MAHESH M.V., PADMANABHA MANDIRAM,
PALLICKAL P.O., MANJADITHARA,
KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 690503.
GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.)
NISHA GEORGE
A.L.NAVANEETH KRISHNAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE KERALA UNIVERSITY,
SENATE HOUSE CAMPUS, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -
695034. REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR.
2 THE SYNDICATE, KERALA UNIVERSITY, SENATE HOUSE CAMPUS,
PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695034. REPRESENTED BY
ITS CHAIRMAN.
3 THE REGISTRAR, KERALA UNIVERSITY, SENATE HOUSE CAMPUS,
PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695034.
4 THE MILAD-E-SHERIEF MEMORIAL COLLEGE (M.S.M. COLLEGE)
KAYAMKULAM-690502, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY
THE MANAGER,
SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM, SC.
JACOB P.ALEX
JOSEPH P.ALEX
MANU SANKAR P.
AMAL AMIR ALI
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
28.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 18290 OF 2022
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioners say that they were appointed as Assistant Professors on the basis of a valid selection procedure, as mandated under the provisions of the Kerala University Act and its Statutes, further asserting that the Selection Committee which did so contained a nominee of the Government as is statutorily mandated. They say that even though the posts against which they were appointed are sanctioned, the University has not yet taken any decision to approve the same, though Ext.P8 recommendations have been made before them by the fourth respondent - College. They, therefore, pray that the competent Authority of the first respondent be directed to approve their appointments within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.
2. Sri.Jacob P.Alex - learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent, in response to the afore submissions of Smt.Ann Maria Francis - learned counsel for the petitioners, affirmed that Ext.P8 recommendation has been made by his client because the posts in question were sanctioned by the Government through Ext.P2. He further explained that even though, in Ext.P1, the University had concurred for the WP(C) NO. 18290 OF 2022 3 creation of three posts in the Department of Biotechnology, the Government chose it fit only to sanction two among them and that the petitioners have been validly appointed against the same. He thus agreed with Smt.Ann Maria Francis that the refusal of the University in approving the said appointments does not appear to be legally correct.
3. Sri.Thomas Abraham - learned standing counsel for the University, submitted that this writ petition is unnecessary and premature because University has not taken any decision on Ext.P8 as of now. He submitted that they are in the process of considering the recommendations of the College and that necessary orders will be issued, taking into account all germane and relevant aspects.
4. When I consider the afore submissions, it is evident that, as of now, the University has not taken any final decision on Ext.P8. But, it must be borne in mind by them that the posts to which the petitioners have been appointed are stated to be the ones sanctioned by the Government through Ext.P2.
5. I, therefore, fail to understand why the University should take so much of time in considering Ext.P8 and arriving at a decision thereon as per law.
6. Resultantly, I allow this writ petition and direct the WP(C) NO. 18290 OF 2022 4 competent Authority of the first respondent to take up Ext.P8 recommendation of the fourth respondent - College and issue appropriate orders thereon, thus approving the appointments of the petitioners if every other statutory criteria and imperatives are found satisfied; which shall be done as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
While doing so, the competent Authority of the University will certainly advert to Ext.P2 order of the Government sanctioning two posts of Lecturers in Biotechnology and their opinion on the same shall be reflected in the resultant order. Finally, on the petitioners' approval being granted through the afore exercise, their salary and arrears will be paid to them within a period of two months thereafter.
Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE stu WP(C) NO. 18290 OF 2022 5 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18290/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. AC.F1/2/2017 DATED 15.11.2017 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER BEARING G.O.(MS)NO.471/2020/HEDN DATED 30.12.2020. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. D2/23/2021/HEDN DATED 25.01.2021 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 23.02.2021 PUBLISHED IN HINDU DAILY.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.
D2/372/2021/HEDN DATED 25.09.2021 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 20.10.2021 ALONG WITH THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED TO THE PRINCIPAL OF THE COLLEGE.
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 20.10.2021 ALONG WITH THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED TO THE PRINCIPAL OF THE COLLEGE.
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. G1/2481/2021 DATED 14.12.2021 ISSUED BY THE PRINCIPAL OF THE RESPONDENT COLLEGE TO THE REGISTRAR OF THE UNIVERSITY.
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE COURSE STRUCTURE AND SYLLABUS FOR BIOTECHNOLOGY ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY.