Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member Services -- Sign up today and get free trial for one month.
Kerala High Court
Dr N.M. Mujeeb Rahman vs Kerala University Of Health Sciences on 22 May, 2024
Author: T.R.Ravi
Bench: T.R.Ravi
WP(C) No.19434 of 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI
WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MAY 2024 / 1ST JYAISHTA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 19434 OF 2023
PETITIONER:
DR N.M. MUJEEB RAHMAN
AGED 54 YEARS
S/O DR. N.K. MOHAMMED,
RESIDING AT: JAMAL MANZIL,
VALANCHERY P.O.,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 676552.
BY ADV S.AJITH (PALAKKAD)
RESPONDENTS:
1 KERALA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR,
MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O.,
THRISSUR,
PIN - 680596.
2 MES MEDICAL COLLEGE
PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM,
KERALA - 679322
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.
3 THE DEAN
MES MEDICAL COLLEGE,
PERINTHALMANNA,
MALAPPURAM,
KERALA- 679322,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR
4 DR. P.A. FAZAL GHAFOOR
AGED 62 YEARS
S/O LATE DR. P.K. ABDUL GAFOOR,
DIRECTOR, MES MEDICAL COLLEGE,
WP(C) No.19434 of 2023
2
PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM, KERALA-679322,
RESIDING AT : MANAPPAD HOUSE, P.O. NADAKKAVU,
CALICUT, PIN - 673011.
BY ADVS.
VAISAKHI V
BABU KARUKAPADATH(B-13)
M.A.VAHEEDA BABU(V-4)
P.U.VINOD KUMAR(K/647/2002)
ARYA RAGHUNATH(K/000474/2018)
T.M.MUHAMMED MUSTHAQ(K/000261/2018)
AJWIN P LALSON(K/001394/2018)
KARUKAPADATH WAZIM BABU(MAH/8319/2019)
P.LAKSHMI(K/001868/2021)
AYSHA E.M.(K/001130/2022)
SHIFANA KAISE(K/001171/2023)
SRI.P.SREEKUMAR, SC.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 18.10.2023, THE COURT ON 22.5.2024 DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) No.19434 of 2023
3
T.R.RAVI, J.
----------------------------------------
WP(C) No.19434 of 2023
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 22nd day of May, 2024
JUDGMENT
The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Professor in the Department of General Surgery under the 2 nd respondent in 2003. While working as a Professor in the Department of General Surgery, he tendered his resignation on 23.8.2021, which the College accepted. He requested a relieving order and an experience certificate. It is submitted that he was issued with an experience certificate on 23.2.2022 wherein apart from stating the details of his service in the post of Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, and Professor, it is stated additionally that he was unauthorisedly absent from his duties from 17.3.2021 onwards. The petitioner contends that the resignation letter was sent on coming to know that the Management was about to initiate disciplinary proceedings against him on an allegation of unauthorised absence. The petitioner is aggrieved by the addition of contested facts in the experience certificate. It is stated that instead of stating that the petitioner has been relieved from the post, matters which will affect his career WP(C) No.19434 of 2023 4 have been stated for no reason whatsoever. According to the petitioner, such entries are made out of ill will and malice.
2. The petitioner had approached this Court earlier by filing WP(C)No.23324 of 2021. The prayer in the said writ petition was for the issuance of an experience certificate and relieving order. It was pending the said writ petition that Ext.P3 was issued to the petitioner. It is seen from the Judges Papers relating to WP(C)No.23324 of 2021 that this Court had directed the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents to get specific instructions as to whether an experience certificate without aspersions can be issued. However, on the request of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner on 30.08.2022, WP(C)No.23324 of 2021 was closed, reserving the petitioner's right to approach the University or other appropriate forum seeking appropriate relief. The order specifically states that the experience certificate which had been issued pending the writ petition was not based on any directions issued by the Court. A copy of the judgment has been produced as Ext.P4 in this writ petition. The petitioner thereafter approached the 1st respondent seeking relief. Soon thereafter, the petitioner filed WP(C)No.40494 of 2022 before this Court, which was disposed of at the admission stage, by Ext.P6 judgment dated WP(C) No.19434 of 2023 5 21.12.2022, directing the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on a representation submitted by the petitioner on 12.9.2022. Thereafter, it appears that a committee was constituted by the 1 st respondent to consider the grievance of the petitioner. It can be seen from Ext.P7 that on 28.3.2023, the Committee had directed the petitioner to submit a request for an experience certificate and relieving order, with supporting documents to the 3 rd respondent herein, and forward a copy of same to the Dean (Academic) of the University. The Committee also directed the 3 rd respondent to issue the certificates within three weeks of receipt of the request from the petitioner, with intimation to the Committee. The petitioner submitted a fresh request through e-mail on 28.03.2023, a copy of which has been produced as Ext.P8. The 3 rd respondent sent a reply mail which has been produced as Ext P9, which states that as per the records of the institution, an experience certificate had already been issued on 23.02.2022 by the Director of the MES Medical College. According to the petitioner, Ext P9 smacks mala fides. It is submitted that if the 1st respondent was satisfied with the experience certificate which had been issued there was no necessity for directing a fresh application to be submitted. The petitioner submitted a representation on 17.04.2023 to the Chairman and WP(C) No.19434 of 2023 6 Members of the Hearing Committee constituted by the 1st respondent, complaining of the 3rd respondent's stand. The writ petition has been filed seeking to quash Ext P9 mail, to declare that the adverse remarks contained against the petitioner in Ext P3 experience certificate are unwarranted and illegal and liable to be expunged, to direct the 3rd respondent to comply with the directions given by the 1st respondent in Ext.P7 proceedings and in the alternate to direct the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext P11 representation.
3. The respondents 2 to 4 have filed counter affidavits, stating that what has been stated in Ext.P3 is true as per the records. It is contended that the petitioner was functioning as a Senior Consultant Surgeon and Managing Director of Nizar Hospital Valanchery, a family venture of the petitioner and there is no statutory requirement for the production of any experience certificate or relieving order for the said employment. It is alleged that the petitioner illegally and unauthorisedly deputed Specialist Doctors of the 1st respondent college to Nizar Hospital. Ext R1(A) Minutes of the meeting of the Managing Committee Meeting held on 28.05.2020 that has been produced, would show that action had been taken on such unauthorised deputations and the petitioner WP(C) No.19434 of 2023 7 knew about the deputations and he had participated in the meeting and admitted about the illegal actions. It is submitted that the petitioner thereafter stopped coming to the hospital and continued on unauthorised absence without submitting any leave application at any point in time. Even though there are several such allegations about the conduct, I don't think it is necessary to go into all these aspects in this writ petition.
4. Heard Sri S.Ajith (Palakkad), counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri P.Sreekumar Standing Counsel for the 1 st respondent University and Sri Babu Karukapadath, counsel for respondents 2 to
4.
5. The main prayer is for quashing Ext P9. No such relief can be granted by this Court. Ext P9 is only a letter that has been sent through email and it only says that from the records it is seen that an experience certificate had been issued to the petitioner on 23.02.2022. That an experience certificate had been issued on that day is an admitted fact. One fails to understand why such a letter is sought to be quashed in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The other grievance pointed out is that Ext.P7 directions issued by the Committee constituted by the 1 st respondent, to the 3rd respondent, have not been complied with. WP(C) No.19434 of 2023 8 Ext.P7 shows that the 3rd respondent who represented the college had stated before the Committee that he was not aware of the details of the case and that no document/letter indicating the request for leave from the petitioner had been received. It is seen that the Committee had heard the petitioner and 3 rd respondent separately. As such, the proceeding cannot be treated as a hearing of both sides together. Neither side heard what was submitted by the other side. The proceedings refers to the contention of the petitioner that the leave application was submitted before the Associate Dean, the resignation letter was submitted to the Director, and that he did not receive any relieving order. It would appear that the fact that an experience certificate was issued on 23.02.2022 was never considered by the Committee. There is no finding by the Committee that the said experience certificate was in any manner improper. The directions appear to have been issued solely based on the submission of the petitioner that he has not been issued with a relieving order. The 3rd respondent cannot be faulted for having sent Ext.P9, in such circumstances.
6. It is contended that the provisions of the Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1960 apply to hospitals. Reliance is placed on the judgment in Lourdes Hospital & Ors. Vs WP(C) No.19434 of 2023 9 Dr.Abraham Mathew & Anr. [2019(1) KHC 250]. It was submitted as per the amended Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Rules, 1961, issued in the exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 34 of the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1960, every employer must issue a service certificate to all the employees in Form-BE. It is hence argued that the management was bound to issue such a certificate to the petitioner. The petitioner has admittedly not approached any of the authorities under the said Act and Rules. No request is seen to have been made for a certificate contemplated in the above- mentioned Rules. As such this Court is not called upon to consider such a contention, particularly since there is no allegation of non- performance of any statutory duty on the part of the management nor any averment that any of the fundamental rights of the petitioner has been infringed.
7. The only prayer that can be considered is the request for a direction to the 1st respondent to consider and take action in Ext P11 representation. In Ext.P6 judgment, this Court had directed the representation submitted by the petitioner to be disposed of. It can be seen from the judgment that the court had not made any observation regarding inter se rights of the parties. The 1st WP(C) No.19434 of 2023 10 respondent had constituted a Committee and the Committee had conducted a sitting and issued certain directions. The grievance of the petitioner appears to be that the directions issued by the Committee have not been complied with. It is in the above circumstances that Ext.P11 has been submitted.
In the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext P11 representation. It is made clear that this Court has not considered the merits of the case and observations made in the judgment are only for disposal of this case. The request Ext P11 shall be considered untrammeled by the observations made in this judgment. Necessary action shall be taken within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
T.R.RAVI JUDGE dsn WP(C) No.19434 of 2023 11 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE E-MAIL DATED 23.08.2021 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT TENDERING HIS RESIGNATION.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER DATED 30.08.2021 SENT BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE DATED 23.02.2022 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT IN HIS CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT-COLLEGE DURING THE PENDENCY OF W.P. (C) NO. 23324/2021 BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P. (C) NO. 23324/2021 DATED 30.08.2022.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT (WITHOUT ANNEXURES).
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.12.2022 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P. (C) NO. 40494/2022.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 28.03.2023 OF THE HEARING COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 28.03.2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF E-MAIL DATED 14.04.2023 SENT BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT OF THE E-MAIL DATED 17.04.2023 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE E-MAIL REPRESENTATION DATED 17.04.2023 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE FACULTY DECLARATION FORM. EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE RELIEVING ORDER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO DR. ABID ALI, DATED 23.02.2022.
EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE RELIEVING ORDER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO DR. MANSOOR CA, WP(C) No.19434 of 2023 12 DATED 23.02.2022.
EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE RELIEVING ORDER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO DR. SAPHINA P, DATED 23.02.2022.
EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 21.09.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT TO THE PIO OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY.
EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 19.10.2022 SENT BY THE 'PIO' OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY TO THE PETITIONER.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT R2(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT DATED 23/03/2022 FILED BY THESE RESPONDENTS IN WP(C) NO. 23324 OF 2021 WITH EXHIBITS.