Carmel Polytechnic College vs The Secretary To Government
2022 Latest Caselaw 324 Ker

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                           PRESENT
      THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
                 TH
 THURSDAY, THE 13   DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 23RD POUSHA, 1943

                  WP(C) NO. 31793 OF 2019

PETITIONER/S:

    1     CARMEL POLYTECHNIC COLLEGE
          ALAPPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN,
          FR. MATHEW AREKALAM, CMI,
          RESIDING AT ST.JOSEPH'S CARMEL MONASTERY,
          PUNNAPRA P.O., ALAPPUZHA-688 004

    2     FR.KUNJUMON JOB,
          AGED 54 YEARS
          S/O. MATHEW JOB,
          LECTURER IN CIVIL ENGINEERING ,
          CARMEL POLYTECHNIC COLLEGE,
          ALAPPUZHA-688 004,
          RESIDING AT ST.JOSEPH'S CARMEL MONASTERY,
          PUNNAPRA P.O., ALAPPUZHA-688 004

    3     MR.RAJESH.P.V.,
          AGED 43 YEARS
          S/O. VASU,
          LECTURER IN CIVIL ENGINEERING ,
          CARMEL POLYTECHNIC COLLEGE,
          ALAPPUZHA-688 004,
          RESIDING AT PATHARIPARAMBIL
          PARAVOOR, PUNNAPRA NORTH P.O.,
          ALAPPUZHA-688 004

          BY ADVS.
          LIJU.V.STEPHEN
          SMT.INDU SUSAN JACOB
          SHRI.VINAY M.E.


RESPONDENT/S:

    1     THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
          GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
          HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001
 WP(C) NO. 31793 OF 2019

                             2



    2     THE DIRECTORATE OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION,
          PADMAVILASAM ROAD, FORT,
          NALUMUKKU, PAZHAVANGADI,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 023


          BY SRI SURYA BINOY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER




     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 13.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 31793 OF 2019

                                      3



                                JUDGMENT

The 1st petitioner, Carmel Polytechnic College is a Christian minority

educational institution conducting Polytechnic Diploma Courses and is

functioning after procuring the sanction from the Directorate of Technical

Education and also with the approval of the All India Council for Technical

Education (AICTE). They have approached this Court seeking to quash

Exhibit P9 and P11 orders and for further direction to the 2nd respondent to

grant approval of appointments of the 2nd and 3rd petitioners w.e.f.

01.06.2016(FN) to 01.06.2017(FN) respectively, and also for direction to the

2nd respondent to grant permission to the 1st petitioner to fill up the post of

Demonstrator in the Civil Department of the 1st petitioner institution and for

incidental reliefs.

2. Sri. Liju V. Stephen, the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners submits that challenging Exhibit P4 order passed by the 2nd

respondent cancelling the order of approval of Sri. Thomaskutty Jose as

Principal of the 1st petitioner institution, the 1st petitioner along with sri.

Thomaskuty had approached this Court and had filed W.P(C.) No.

15285/2017. By Exhibit P5 judgment dated 22.01.2018, this Court quashed

the proceedings and declared that Sri. Thomaskutty Jose shall be entitled to WP(C) NO. 31793 OF 2019

approval of appointment as Principal in the Polytechnic colleges, in case he

has the qualification prescribed for appointment as Head of Department

(HOD) with 10 years relevant experience. In paragraph 7 of the judgment, it

was held as follows

"7. In the above circumstances, I am of the opinion that the clarification issued in Ext.P6 to the effect that PhD is an essential qualification for promotion as Principal in aided Polytechnics cannot be correct in view of Ext.P1 and is therefore unsustainable. The clarification therefore cannot go beyond the prescription in the first instance. In the absence of any amendment to Ext.P1, I am of the opinion that the statement in Ext.P6 to the effect that PhD is an essential qualification for appointment as Principal in Diploma level technical institutions cannot be sustained."

3. Challenging Ext.P5 judgment Writ Appeal No.171/2019 was

preferred and by judgment dated 04.02.2020, the Writ Appeal was disposed

of with the following directions.

"11. In the result, in modification of the judgment of the learned Single Judge, while sustaining the order quashing Ext.P5, we direct the Directorate of Technical Education to consider whether the 2nd respondent qualifies to be appointed to the post of Principal with reference to the applicable regulations as stated above and if so, his appointment shall be approved. the appointment shall be made within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment."

4. It is stated that in tune with the directions issued by this Court,

Exhibit P12 order was passed on 22.02.2021, whereby approval was granted WP(C) NO. 31793 OF 2019

to Sri.Thomaskutty Jose to the post of Principal with effect from 01.06.2016.

5. It is contended that in view of Ext.P12 order, it is only just and

proper that approval of the appointment of the 2nd and 3rd petitioners to

their respective posts be granted from 01.06.2016(FN) and the 1st

respondent be directed to grant permission to the 1st petitioner to fill up the

vacancy of Demonstrator in the Civil Department of the 1st petitioner

institution.

6. A statement has been filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent,

wherein it is stated that the Government vide letter No. L1/260/2017/H.EDN

dated 29.03.2019 had directed to grant approval to the appointing authority

to accord provisional promotion to Mr.Thomaskutty Jose as Principal with

immediate effect as Principal as a special case in relaxation of the existing

norms, as he had retired on 30.03.2019. It is stated that on the basis of the

appointment of Mr. Thomaskutty Jose as Principal, the vacancy of HOD will

only arise w.e.f. 30.03.2019 and in that view of the matter the 2nd

petitioner can be appointed as HOD only with effect from the said date. It

is only then the 3rd petitioner can be promoted from the post of

Demonstrator in Civil Department to the post of Lecturer, after granting

approval to the 2nd petitioner as HOD w.e.f. 30.03.2019. It is also stated WP(C) NO. 31793 OF 2019

that there is no established vacancy of Demonstrator at present.

7. I have considered the submissions advanced.

8. I find that the Writ Appeal challenging Exhibit P5 judgement of

the learned Single Judge was disposed of while this writ petition was

pending before this Court. Their Lordships of the Division Bench while

sustaining the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge quashing the

impugned order, issued directions to the Directorate of Technical Education

to consider whether Sri.Thomas Kutty Jose qualifies to be appointed to the

post of Principal with reference to the applicable regulations. In tune with

the directions issued in W.A.171/2019, the Government has passed Ext.P12

order granting approval to the appointment of Sri.Thomas Kutty Jose as

Principal with effect from 01.06.2016. If that be the case, a vacancy of HOD

would arise with effect from 01.06.2016 and the 2nd petitioner is entitled to

be appointed as Head of the Department with effect from 01.06.2016. The

3rd petitioner is entitled to be promoted from the post of

Demonstrator(Civil) to the post of Lecturer in Civil Department after grant of

approval to the 2nd petitioner as HOD with effect from 01.06.2016. If that

be the case, a vacancy of Demonstrator will be established from such date.

In view of the discussion above, the petitioner is entitled to succeed. WP(C) NO. 31793 OF 2019

There will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to grant approval of the

appointment of 2nd and 3rd petitioners with effect from 01.06.2016 FN as a

consequence of Ext.P12 order. There will be a further direction to the 2nd

respondent to grant permission to the 1st petitioner to fill up the vacancy of

Demonstrator in the Civil Department as per procedure and in accordance

with law.

This writ petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE

avs WP(C) NO. 31793 OF 2019

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 31793/2019

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.05.2016 ISSUED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER COLLEGE

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 05.07.2016 ISSUED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 20.02.2014

EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.04.2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO 1ST PETITIONER COLLEGE

EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.01.2018 IN WPC NO 15285/2017

EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31.5.29016 ISSUED BY 1ST PETITIONER APPOINTING THE 2ND PETITIONER

EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 6.10.2016 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT APPOINTING THE 2ND PETITIONER

EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.05.2017 ISSUED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER APPOINTMENT 3RD PETITIONER

EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 30.3.2019

EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 30.7.2019 MADE BY THE 1ST PETITIONER COLLEGE TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT WP(C) NO. 31793 OF 2019

EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26.09.2019 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER COLLEGE

Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.2.2021 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.