Manoj George vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 7216 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

                THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

    TUESDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 11TH PHALGUNA, 1942

                      WP(C).No.24452 OF 2019(F)


PETITIONER:

               MANOJ GEORGE,
               AGED 33 YEARS
               S/O.GEORGE THOMAS, OORAMVELIL HOUSE,
               EDATHUA PO, ALAPPUZHA-689573.

               BY ADV. SMT.V.VIJITHA

RESPONDENTS:

      1        STATE OF KERALA,
               REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
               DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.

      2        DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,
               DIRECTORATE OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,
               6TH FLOOR, VIKAS BHAVAN PO,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.

      3        ST.ALOYSIUS COLLEGE,
               EDATHUA VILLAGE, KUTTANAD TALUK,
               ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,
               REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER 689 573

               BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER
               BY ADV. SRI.JOHNSON MANAYANI
               BY ADV. SRI.JEEVAN MATHEW MANAYANI


               GP SRI B HARISH KUMAR

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD        ON
02.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.24452 OF 2019(F)

                                 2


                           JUDGMENT

Dated this the 2nd day of March 2021

The father of the petitioner who was a part-time law

lecturer in the college run by the 3 rd respondent,

unfortunately died while in harness. Petitioner, his son, aged

33 years submitted an application for appointment to the

post of part-time law lecturer dated 18.05.2016 (Ext.P1).

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioner submitted that while the representation was

pending before the 3rd respondent, an aided college, the 2nd

respondent - Director Collegiate Education replied that there

was no provision of appointment as part-time lecture, on

compassionate grounds. Since the counter on behalf of the

2nd respondent reveals that it is not a permanent post, there

is no impediment for the management to issue appointment

letter to the petitioner or seek approval from 2nd respondent.

3. On the contrary, Sri.B.Harish Kumar, learned

Government Pleader representing the 2nd respondent WP(C).No.24452 OF 2019(F)

submitted that there is no provision in the Rules for

appointment of part-time lecturer on compassionate

grounds. For the filling up of the post of part-time lecturer

the college is required to undergo the exercise of selection

process, except by certain conditions which are necessary

and essential for making a candidate eligible as a part-time

faculty.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties

and appraised the paper book.

5. It is a matter of record that the post of part-time

lecturer in the law college of the respondent No.3 is not a

permanent post. In fact, the impression drawn is that it is an

application for compassionate employment, though it is not

so. The management in such circumstances was not required

to go through the provisions of compassionate appointment,

they can independently on their own, as has been done in

other matters, appoint a part-time lecturer for making

arrangements particularly for the senior students in the law

college. The scale is not at par with the regular scale of the WP(C).No.24452 OF 2019(F)

faculty members and therefore, approval of the Government

may also be not necessary. Accordingly, I dispose of this

writ petition with a direction to the 3 rd respondent to

consider the appointment of the petitioner uninfluenced by

the observation recorded by the 2nd respondent, as an

independent candidate instead of dependent of the

deceased part-time lecturer who was the father of the

petitioner.

This writ petition stands disposed of.

Sd/-

AMIT RAWAL

JUDGE nak WP(C).No.24452 OF 2019(F)

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 18.05.2016 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER TO 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER TO 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 02.06.2016 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO 2ND RESPONDENT.

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT R3(A) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE THEN MANAGER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT COLLEGE DT.15.12.2017 TO 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT R3(B) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT 4.10.2018 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO 3RD RESPONDENT.