Kerala High Court
Dr.Anupriya Samuel vs The University Of Kerala on 8 June, 2021
WP(C).27813/17 1
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
WP(C) NO. 27813 OF 2017
PETITIONER/S:
DR.ANUPRIYA SAMUEL
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF ZOOLOGY,ST.JOHN'S
COLLEGE, ANCHAL.
BY ADVS.
SRI.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,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 024.
2 THE VICE CHANCELLOR
UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, KARIAVATTOM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 034.
3 THE MANAGER
MALANKARA CATHOLIC SYRIAN COLLEGES,
SAMANNUAYA PASTORAL CENTRE,ST.MARY'S
CATHEDRAL CAMPUS,PATTOM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004.
WP(C).27813/17 2
BY ADV SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM, SC,
UNIVERSITY OF KERALA
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
08.06.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).27813/17 3
V.G.ARUN, J.
-----------------------------------------------
WPC.No.27813 of 2017
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 8th day of June, 2021
JUDGMENT
The petitioner was appointed as Lecturer/Assistant Professor in
Zoology at the St.Johns College, Anchal on 22.9.2015. After appointing the
petitioner, the Manager/3rd respondent sought the University's approval.
Thereupon, a doubt arose regarding the validity of petitioner's appointment,
since the decision to grant Ph.D Degree to the petitioner was taken after
she applied for the post. The University therefore sought legal opinion from
its Standing Counsel. The opinion being in the petitioner's favour, the
Standing Committee on Teaching and Non-Teaching Staff of the University
recommended acceptance of the legal opinion. Thereafter, the Syndicate
resolved to agree with the recommendations, but the Vice-Chancellor
expressed disagreement, pointing out that the appointment was not in
consonance with the UGC Regulations, 2010 and the Government order
implementing the Regulations. In the subsequent meeting held on
13.6.2017, one of the Syndicate members raised an objection against the
disagreement of the Vice-Chancellor on the premise that the Vice-
Chancellor can only express his dissent. Exhibit P13 was issued thereafter,
stating that the proposal for approval of the petitioner's appointment is being
returned, since the petitioner was not qualified for appointment to the post
when the vacancy was notified and hence, her appointment is inconsistent
with the UGC (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and
Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and other Measures for
the Maintenance of Standards of Higher Education Regulations, 2010
(hereinafter referred to as 'the UGC Regulations, 2010').
2. Heard Sri.S.Mohammed Haneef, learned counsel for the petitioner,
Sri.Thomas Abraham, learned Standing Counsel for Kerala University and
Senior Advocate Sri. Jose Kannanthanam, appearing for the 3rd
respondent Manager.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Syndicate,
which is conferred with the authority having recommended approval of the
appointment, Exhibit P13 communication, based on the Vice Chancellor's
dissent, is issued without authority. Elaborating on the point, it is contended
that Section 10 of the Kerala University Act does not confer the Vice
Chancellor with the authority to approve appointments of teachers in private
colleges. On the other hand, Section 21(xxviii), makes it clear that, approval
of appointment of teachers in private colleges is the prerogative of the
Syndicate. To buttress this argument, reliance is placed on the Division
Bench decision in Vinod B.S. v. Chikku A.M. And Others (judgment in
W.A.No.574 of 2015 and connected cases). Exhibit P13 is challenged also
on the ground that the stipulations in UGC Regulations, 2010 will not impact
the petitioner's appointment in view of the clarificatory order of the Apex
Court in University of Kerala v. Dr.D.Radhakrishnan Pillai and Others
[Special Leave to Appeal (C).Nos. 18938-18942/2017].
4. Learned Senior Counsel drew attention to Section 10(13) of the
Kerala University Act and submitted that the Vice Chancellor is conferred
with the authority to take action on matters requiring the decision of the
Syndicate or the Academic Council only when the Syndicate or the
Academic Council is not in session and an emergent situation, requiring
immediate action, arises. Even in such a case, the Vice-Chancellor is bound
to report the action taken at the next session of the Syndicate or Academic
Council, as the case may be, which makes it evident that the power
conferred on the Syndicate cannot be usurped by the Vice-Chancellor.
5. Sri.Thomas Abraham, learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala
University submitted that the Syndicate resolution recommending approval
of petitioner's appointment was not in consonance with the UGC
Regulations, 2010 and the Full Bench decision in Dr.D.Radhakrishna
Pillai v. Travancore Devaswom Board and Others [2016(2) KLJ 41].
That, as per Clauses 3.3.0 and 3.3.1 of the UGC Regulations, 2010, a
candidate applying for the post of Assistant Professor should have qualified
the National Eligibility Test (NET) or an accredited test (State Level
Eligibility Test - SLET/SET) or should have acquired Ph.D Degree in
accordance with the UGC (Minimum Standards and Procedure for Award of
Ph.D Degree) Regulations, 2009. According to the learned counsel, as the
petitioner did not satisfy the requirement, the University was justified in
rejecting her proposal for appointment.
6. In order to resolve the issue raised, it is necessary to consider the
relevant provisions in the Kerala University Act, 1974 and the Kerala
University First Statutes, 1977. Section 23 of the Act vests the Syndicate
with the executive powers of the University, including the power of general
superintendence and control over the institutions of the University. Section
23 (xviii) confers the Syndicate with the power to approve the appointment
of teachers in private colleges. Statute 3(xvii) under Chapter 6 of the Kerala
University First Statutes, 1977 empowers the Syndicate to approve the
appointment of teachers as qualified to give instructions or to supervise or
control research and to withdraw such approval, subject to the regulations
framed by the Academic Council. The above provisions leave no room for
doubt that the Syndicate, and not the Vice-Chancellor, is the appropriate
authority. Legal support for this position can be garnered from the Division
Bench decision in Vinod B.S's case (supra), the contextually relevant
portion of which reads 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. As rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel, Vice
Chancellor can exercise the power vested with the Syndicate only when the
Syndicate is not in session and an emergent situation, requiring immediate
action, arises. As far as the instant case is concerned, as per Exhibits P11
and P12 resolutions, the Syndicate had recommended to accept the
proposal for appointment of the petitioner. The Vice Chancellor's dissent will
not render the resolution of the Syndicate invalid. As such, rejection of the
proposal for appointment based on the Vice-Chancellor's dissent is
unsustainable.
8. The contention that the petitioner failed to satisfy the requirements
of the UGC Regulations, 2010 also cannot hold good in view of the
clarificatory order of the Supreme Court in University of Kerala v.
Dr.D.Radhakrishnan Pillai and Others [Special Leave to Appeal (C).Nos.
18938-18942/2017], the relevant portion of which reads as follows;
"The fact remains that the law has been settled by the High Court
finally by the judgment of the Full Bench of the High Court of Kerala
dated 23.2.2016 regarding the application of U.G.C Regulations.
Therefore, it is only in the interest of justice and for doing complete
justice between the parties to declare that the judgment dated 23.2.2016
will be applicable only from the date of the judgment i.e. 23.2.2016,
except in the case of the individual parties before the High Court.
Declared accordingly."
In the result, Exhibit P13 is quashed and the University is directed to
approve the petitioner's appointment as Assistant Professor in Zoology with
effect from the date of appointment. Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
V.G.ARUN, JUDGE
vgs
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 27813/2017
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE
3RD RESPONDENT THE MANAGERMENT ON 20.5.2015.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE STAFF
SELECTION COMMITTEE.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED
22.9.2015.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PH.D SUBMISSON CERTIFICATE.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 11.6.2015.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF REGULATIONS OF
COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF REGULATIONS OF
THE KERALA UNIVERSITY OF FISHERIES AND OCEAN
STUDIES.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF REGULATIONS OF
THE NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF ADVANCE LEGAL
STUDIES.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE FOR PH.D DEGREE
IN THE FACULTY OF SCIENCE.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE THE LEGAL OPINION WHICH IS ALSO HOSTED
IN THE WEBSITE F THE UNIVERSITY.
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE SYNDICATE.
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE PRELIMINARY MINUTES OF THE
28TH MEETING OF THE SYNDICATE HELD ON
13.6.2017.
EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30.6.2017
ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR.
EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE SYNDICATE RESOLUTION.
