Anju T .R vs The State Of Kerala
2022 Latest Caselaw 8707 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
        THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 16TH ASHADHA, 1944
                       WP(C) NO. 19331 OF 2022
PETITIONER:

            ANJU T .R, W/O ARUN CHANDRAN, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR,
            NEWMAN COLLEGE, THODUPUZHA-685585 RESIDING AT
            PUTHENPARAMBIL USHUS, NAD P.O., NOCHIMA,
            ALUVA, ERNAKULAM- PIN:-683563.

            BY ADVS.
            GEORGE JACOB (JOSE)
            ROSHAN JACOB MUNDACKAL


RESPONDENTS:

    1       THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL
            SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
            GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

    2       THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004.

    3       THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,
            ERNAKULAM- 682011

    4       M. G. UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS,
            KOTTAYAM-686560, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.

    5       THE MANAGER, NEWMAN COLLEGE, THODUPUZHA-685585,
            CORPORATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY, DIOCESE OF
            KOTHAMANGALAM, BISHOP'S HOUSE,
            KOTHAMANGALAM - 686691.


            ADV.PARVATHY K (GP)
            ADV.SURIN GEORGE IPE (SC)


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WPC 19331/22
                                      2



                                 JUDGMENT

The petitioner is presently working as an Assistant

Professor in Biotechnology in the Newman College, Thodupuzha,

and says that she was appointed pursuant to Ext.P2 sanction

given by the Government as early as on 07.02.2018. She says

that she was validly selected and appointed pursuant to the

selection process under the aegis of a Selection Committee, in

which a nominee of the Government was also available; but that

when her appointment was approved, it was granted only from a

prospective date, namely with effect from 10.08.2020 and not

from 18.06.2018, when she was actually appointed.

2. The petitioner, therefore, prays that Ext.P8 order of

the University, to the extent to which it denies approval to her

appointment with effect from 18.06.2018, be set aside; further

explaining that this appears to have been done because the

Government, through Ext.P6 dated 10.08.2020, ordered that a

new post in Biotechnology be sanctioned to the College, thus

being under the impression that she was appointed to the same. WPC 19331/22

She asserts that she has not been appointed against the vacancy

mentioned in Ext.P6, but to an existing vacancy as reflected

from Ext.P2; and therefore, that she is fully entitled to be

granted approval from the date of her initial engagement in the

year 2018.

3. I have heard Sri.George Jacob - learned counsel for

the petitioner; Sri.Surin George Ipe - learned Standing Counsel

for the M.G.University and Smt.Parvathy K. - learned

Government Pleader. Even though notices from this Court have

not been served on respondents 5 and 6 - who are the Manager

and Principal respectively of the Newman College, where the

petitioner is working - I am certain that this Court will be

justified in disposing of this Writ Petition at the admission stage,

because the directions that I propose herein will not prejudice

them, particularly when they appear to be supporting the

petitioner.

4. Sri.Surin George Ipe - learned Standing Counsel for

the M.G.University, submitted that Ext.P8 has been issued by his

client limiting the petitioner's approval from 10.08.2020 because WPC 19331/22

there was no vacancy in the College prior to it. He added that

the post was created by the Government only through Ext.P6

order on 10.08.2020 and therefore, that the petitioner was given

the said benefit from that date. He, therefore, prayed that this

Writ Petition be dismissed.

5. Smt.Parvathy K. - learned Government Pleader,

submitted that Ext.P6 was issued based on the recommendations

of the Director of Collegiate Education, which is referred to as

Item No.3 therein. She explained that, on assessment of the

workload of Botany and Biotechnology in the College, it was

found that it is entitled only to three posts in the Department of

Botany and one post in the Department of Biotechnology; and

that is in such circumstances, the Government issued Ext.P6. She

thus argued that the petitioner cannot obtain any further benefit,

more than what has been offered to her through Ext.P8.

6. When I consider the afore submissions and test it on

the touchstone of various materials available, I must say that I

cannot find favour with the stand taken by the respondents as

afore. This is because, in Ext.P6, the recommendations of the WPC 19331/22

Director of Collegiate Education have been specifically stated.

Though the said recommendations have not been placed on

record, it is clear from Ext.P6 that what the Director of

Collegiate Education recommended was that, out of the five

posts that were already sanctioned to the Department of Botany,

two be re-designated as Assistant Lecturers in Biotechnology,

taking into account the fact that the workload for the said two

department was 55 hours and 28 hours respectively per week.

However, without assigning any reason whatsoever, Ext.P6

abolished two posts from the department of Botany and

sanctioned only one post to the department of Biotechnology.

This is sought to be explained by the learned Government

Pleader saying that, as per the applicable Government Orders,

only one post is entitled against every 16 hour workload in

Biotechnology; and therefore, that the college cannot claim more

than what has been granted in Ext.P6.

7. That said, however, the real question is not whether

Ext.P6 created a post on 10.08.2020 and whether the petitioner

is entitled to be adjusted against the same. The crucial aspect is WPC 19331/22

whether the petitioner was appointed to an available vacancy as

has been reflected in Ext.P2. In this regard, I must say that I

find full force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the

petitioner because, Ext.P2 unequivocally granted sanction to the

College to conduct selection process for filling up 'one vacancy

in Biotechnology' and a Government representative was thus

nominated to the Staff Selection Committee for such purpose.

8. It is without contest that the petitioner was selected

by the Selection Committee and then granted appointment with

effect from 18.06.2018. Indubitably, therefore, the petitioner's

appointment predated Ext.P6 order, which was issued only on

10.08.2020. Obviously, hence, the stand taken by the University,

that the only vacancy in the department of Biotechnology in the

college was the one created through Ext.P6, cannot find my

favour, particularly taking note of the unambiguous statements in

Ext.P2. Unfortunately, this has not been noticed by the

University, while they issued Ext.P8 order.

9. In the afore circumstances, I am certain that Ext.P8

cannot be granted imprimatur and that it deserves to be set WPC 19331/22

aside.

Resultantly, I order this Writ Petition and set aside Ext.P8;

with a consequential direction to the competent Authority of the

University to reconsider the claim of the petitioner, adverting to

Ext.P2 and her appointment order - namely Ext.P4, after

affording her, as also the official concerned of the college an

opportunity of being heard; thus culminating in an appropriate

fresh order and necessary action thereon as expeditiously as is

possible.

I make it clear that while the afore exercise is completed,

the University will specifically advert to my observations above,

as also to the statements in Ext.P2.

Needless to say, depending upon the decision to be taken

by the University, the petitioner would be entitled to all eligible

benefits without any avoidable delay thereafter.

Sd/-

RR                                       DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
                                                 JUDGE
 WPC 19331/22


               APPENDIX OF WP(C) 19331/2022

PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1        TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE
                  ORDER DATED 10/12/1999 OF THE 4TH
                  RESPONDENT-UNIVERSITY.
Exhibit P2        TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED

7/2/2018 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT ADDRESSED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES DATED 16/6/2018 OF THE SELECTION COMMITTEE FOR SELECTION OF ASSISTANT PROFESSOR IN BIOTECHNOLOGY. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18/6/2018 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT APPOINTING THE PETITIONER AS ASSISTANT PROFESSOR IN BIOTECHNOLOGY.

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 28/6/2018 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT ADDRESSED TO THE UNIVERSITY WITHOUT THE APPENDED DOCUMENTS.

Exhibit P6        TRUE COPY OF G.O.(M.S.) NO.
                  280/2020/H.EDN DATED 10/8/2020 OF THE
                  1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P7        TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 7/9/2020
                  OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT ADDRESSED TO THE
                  1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P8        TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 8/3/2021 OF

THE 4TH RESPONDENT GRANTING APPROVAL TO THE APPOINTMENT OF THE PETITIONER FROM 10/8/2020.

Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 28/3/2022 OF THE PETITIONER ADDRESSED TO ALL THE RESPONDENTS.

Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 28/4/2022 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT ADDRESSED TO THE PETITIONER.