Kerala High Court
Dr. Anupriya Samuel vs The University Of Kerala on 8 June, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE 2021 / 18TH JYAISHTA, 1943
RP NO. 348 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 27813/2017 OF HIGH COURT OF
KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/S:
DR. ANUPRIYA SAMUEL
AGED 33 YEARS
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF ZOOLOGY, ST. JOHN'S
COLLEGE, ANCHAL
BY ADVS.
S.MUHAMMED HANEEFF
SRI.T.SAILESH KUMAR
SRI.M.H.ASIF ALI
SMT.SHAIMA VAHAB
SMT.MINU BABU
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, KARIAVATTOM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURM - 695 024
2 THE VICE CHANCELLOR
UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, KARIAVATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -
695 024
3 THE MANAGER
MALANKARA CATHOLIC SYRIAN COLLEGES, SAMANNUAYA PASTORAL
CENTRE, ST. MARY'S CATHREDRAL CAMPUS, PATTOM
,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004
BY ADV SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM, SC, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA
OTHER PRESENT:
SR.ADV.JOSE KANNANTHANAM AND ADV.TONY GEORGE
KANNANTHANAM FOR R3
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10.2.2021, THE COURT ON 08.06.2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RP.348/19 3
V.G.ARUN, J.
-----------------------------------------------
R.P.No.348 of 2019
in
W.P(C).No.27813 of 2017
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 8th day of June, 2021
ORDER
The aggrieved writ petitioner seeks review of the judgment rejecting
her prayer to quash Exhibit P13 communication and for directing
respondents 1 and 2 to approve her appointment as |Assistant
Professor in the Department of Zoology at the 3 rd respondent's
College. By Exhibit P13, the University had rejected the proposal for
approving the petitioner's appointment stating that she did not have
the requisite qualification on the date of submission of application to
the notified post of Assistant Professor. The essential facts are as
under;
The petitioner was ranked No.1 in the list of candidates for
appointment to the post of Assistant Professor notified by the 3 rd
respondent. Based on petitioner's merit, she was appointed to the
post by Exhibit P3 order dated 22.9.2015. Thereafter, the 3rd
respondent submitted proposal seeking approval of the appointment.
As Ph.D certificate was issued after the petitioner had submitted the
application seeking appointment, University sought legal opinion
regarding the validity of the appointment. The legal opinion being in
favour of the petitioner's appointment, the Standing Committee on
Teaching and Non-Teaching Staff of the University, which is a
statutory committee of the Syndicate, recommended approval of the
appointment. The Syndicate concurred with the recommendation,
but the Vice-Chancellor disagreed with the Syndicate decision. This
had resulted in the issuance of Exhibit P13, finding the selection to
be not in accordance with the UGC Regulations, 2010.
2. It was contended that the petitioner having submitted her
thesis on 19.6.2015, delay on the part of the University in holding the
Syndicate meeting and granting the Ph.D certificate cannot be to the
petitioners' detriment and that the extant Rules and Regulations of
the Kerala University did not specify, as to when exactly a candidate
could be considered to have acquired the Ph.D degree.
3. By the judgment sought to be reviewed, the grounds of
challenge were repelled holding that, neither acceptance of the
thesis nor a pass in the viva voce would automatically confer Ph.D
Degree on a candidate. It was therefore held that Exhibit P13, by
which the University refused to approve the petitioner's appointment,
is legal and valid.
4. The judgment is sought to be reviewed on the ground that
failure to consider Annexures A1 and A2 judgments rendered under
similar circumstances, finding the Syndicate to be the authority
conferred with the power to approve appointments and the binding
effect of the Syndicate's recommendation, has rendered the
judgment unsustainable.
5. The facts discussed in Annexure A1 judgment shows that
after approval of appointment of the petitioner therein, the Deputy
Director of Collegiate Education had objected to the payment of
salary on the premise that as on the date on which the vacancy was
notified, the petitioner did not possess Ph.D Degree. Therein also,
the contention urged was that the petitioner had submitted Ph.D
thesis prior to submission of the application and the University had
delayed the holding of open defence and awarding Ph.D Degree.
The learned single Judge held that the duty cast upon the Director of
Collegiate Education is to verify whether the appointment is in order
and not to sit upon the decision of the Selection Committee, to find
out as to whether the appointee had the requisite qualification as on
the date of notification.
6. In Annexure A2 judgment, the authority of the Vice
Chancellor to approve the appointment of Lecturers in Colleges
affiliated to the University of Kerala was one of the issues
considered. After referring to the relevant statutory provisions, the
Division Bench held as under;
"13. From a reading of the relevant provisions in the
Kerala University Act and, the Statutes and the
Regulations framed thereunder, it is abundantly clear that
the authority vested with the power to take a decision in
the matter of grant or rejection of approval of appointment
in a affiliated college is with the Syndicate. In the instant
case, it can be seen from a mere reading of the impugned
Ext.P-10 proceedings dated 29.9.2011 that the said
decision therein to reject the proposal for approval of the
impugned appointment of the petitioner as a Lecturer in
Bio Chemistry in S.N. College, Kollam has been rendered
by the Vice Chancellor..................... It is crystal clear from
the materials on record that, till date the competent
authority of the University vested with the power to take a
decision in the matter of grant or rejection of approval of
an appointment has never taken any decision on the
issue as to whether approval of the appointment of the
petitioner herein has to be granted or declined. The
authority, which is vested with the power to grant approval
of an appointment is also the authority, which is vested
with the power to decline or reject approval thereto.
Therefore, for effective compliance of the directions
issued in Ext.P-7 judgment, the matter relating to the
proposal submitted by the college for approval of the
impugned appointment as well as the objections thereto
submitted by the contesting respondent herein should
have been placed before the competent authority, viz.,
Syndicate, to decide, whether the approval of the
impugned appointment is to be granted or declined. This
has not been done in the instant case and on the other
hand, the Vice Chancellor has proceeded to decide the
matter himself and has taken a decision to reject the
proposal for approval of the appointment submitted by the
college management. This evidently is wrong and the
matter should have been placed for consideration before
the Syndicate to enable it to render a decision on the
merits of the matter and in accordance with law."
7. Having carefully gone through the aforementioned
decisions, I am convinced that my judgment require reconsideration.
In the result, the Review Petition is allowed and the judgment dated
25.2.2019 in W.P(C).No.27813 of 2017 is recalled.
Sd/-
V.G.ARUN, JUDGE
vgs
