Teena Thomas vs Represented By Its Vice ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 1483 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
     THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
                                    &
        THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
 WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 13TH MAGHA, 1943
                           WA NO. 57 OF 2022
 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.12.2021 IN WP(C)NO.28525/2021
                        OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

             DR.TEENA THOMAS
             KULANGATTIL HOUSE, KADACKANADU P.O,
             ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682311
             BY ADVS.
             JOBY CYRIAC
             KURIAN K JOSE

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

    1        MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY,
             REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE CHANCELLOR,
             KOTTAYAM,PIN 686 560
    2        SYNDICATE SELECTION COMMITTEE FOR APPOINTMENT OF
             LECTURER, MG UNIVERSITY,KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686560
             REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN/ VICE CHANCELLOR
    3        REGISTRAR,MG UNIVERSITY
             KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686560
    4        ST PETERS COLLEGE
             KOLENCHERY. RNAKULAM, PIN - 682311
             REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL,
    5        THE PRINCIPAL ST.PETER'S COLLEGE
             KOLENCHERY,ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682311


             BY SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE

    THIS     WRIT     APPEAL   HAVING   COME   UP    FOR    ADMISSION    ON
02.02.2022,     THE    COURT   ON   THE    SAME     DAY    DELIVERED    THE
FOLLOWING:
 WA No. 57 of 2022
                                     2


                               JUDGMENT

A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.

The petitioner in WP(C)No.28525 of 2021 is the appellant

herein, aggrieved by the judgment dated 13.12.2021 of the learned

Single Judge. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the Writ

Appeal are as follows:

2. The appellant was working as Assistant Professor in

Chemistry in the 4th respondent College pursuant to an appointment

that was approved with effect from 3.6.2013 taking into account the

work load of the previous academic year. Ext.P3 dated 9.6.2015 is

the order approving the appointment of the appellant with effect

from 3.6.2013. Although, the appellant claimed that her

appointment ought to have been approved with effect from 1.1.2013

since Ext.P4 work load statement as on 1.11.2012 pertaining to the

same academic year indicated that there was sufficient work load to

appoint her with effect from 1.1.2013, it is not in dispute that she

never impugned Ext.P3 order approving her appointment only with

effect from 3.6.2013. According to the appellant, she came across a

judgment of this Court of the year 2021 in State of Kerala and WA No. 57 of 2022

Ors. v. St.George College, Aruvithura and Others (WA No.3313

of 2020) and it was only then that she realised that she had a

meritorious claim for approval of her appointment with effect from

1.1.2013. She therefore preferred Ext.P5 representation dated

20.09.2021 before the second respondent, through the 5th

respondent and approached this Court through the writ petition

aforementioned seeking a direction to the second respondent to

consider and pass orders on Ext.P5 representation.

3. The learned Single Judge, who considered the writ

petition found that the representation preferred by the appellant was

essentially an attempt to revive a dead cause of action, and hence

proceeded to dismiss the writ petition as belated.

4. We have heard Sri.Joby Cyriac, the learned counsel for

the appellant-writ petitioner and Sri.Surin Geroge Ipe, the learned

counsel for the respondent-University

5. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of

the case and the submissions made across the Bar, and despite the

fervent plea of the learned counsel for the appellant that by WA No. 57 of 2022

approving her appointment with effect from 01.01.2013 no other

teaching staff would be prejudiced, we find ourselves unable to

accept the contentions of the appellant in view of the inaction on

the part of the appellant is not impugning Ext.P3 approval order

within time. As already noted, Ext.P3 order approving her

appointment with effect from 3.6.2013 was passed as early as on

9.6.2015 and the appellant approached this Court through the writ

petition only in December, 2021. There is no convincing explanation

whatsoever for the inordinate delay in approaching this Court

except to say that the appellant came across a favourable judgment

rendered in the case of some other person in 2021. We are of the

view that the said reason cannot justify her belated approach to this

Court or a resurrection of a stale claim.

The Writ Appeal fails, and is accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

Sd/-

MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.

JUDGE dlk 2.2.22