Kerala High Court

Dr. Rajeev T. Ulahannan vs The Vice-Chancellor on 14 June, 2022

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
     TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 24TH JYAISHTA, 1944
                       WP(C) NO. 17927 OF 2022
PETITIONER:

          DR. RAJEEV T. ULAHANNAN, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR,
          DEPARTMENT OF PHYSICS, PAVANATMA COLLEGE,
          MURIKKASSERY, IDUKKI, KERALA -685604.

          BY ADVS.ABRAHAM VAKKANAL (SR.)
          PAUL ABRAHAM VAKKANAL
          VINEETHA SUSAN THOMAS


RESPONDENTS:

    1     THE VICE-CHANCELLOR, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY,
          PRIYADARSHINI HILLS P.O., KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686 560.

    2     STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
          TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
          GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001.

    3     THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,
          VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN- 695033.

    4     THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,
          ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682011, VIKAS BHAVAN.

    5     THE MANAGER, PAVANATMA COLLEGE, MURIKKASSERY, IDUKKI,
          KERALA -685604.

    6     MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS
          REGISTRAR, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS P. O., KOTTAYAM,
          PIN - 686 560.

          SMT. PARVATHY .K-GP
          SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE, SC


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 17927 OF 2022
                              -2-

                           JUDGMENT

The petitioner, who has been appointed as

an Assistant Professor in the services of the

'Pavanatma College', Idukki - of which the 5th

respondent is its Manager, impugns Ext.P13

order of the Mahatma Gandhi University

('University', for short), to which, the

College is affiliated, declining approval to

his appointment, saying that the College does

not have enough workload to accommodate him.

2. The petitioner says that the reasoning

in Ext.P13 goes contrary to Exts.P10 and P12

Government Orders; and that Ext.P18 order,

subsequently issued by the University on

14.05.2021, would fortify this because they

merely say that they are awaiting instructions

from the Government, based on Ext.P17 letter, WP(C) NO. 17927 OF 2022

which was issued to them in the year 2017.

3. The petitioner contends that the stand

of the University is wholly and egregiously

improper because, even going by the admitted

scenario, the College obtains 57 hours of

workload - as has been stated in Ext.P17 itself

- and therefore, that as per Exts.P10 and P12

Orders of the Government, the College is

entitled to four posts, the last of which has

been offered to him. The petitioner thus prays

that Exts.P13 and P18 be quashed and the

University be directed to approve his

appointment, without any further delay.

4. The afore submissions of the

petitioner, as made by his learned counsel -

Sri.Paul Abraham Vakkanal, were answered by

Sri.Surin George Ipe - learned Standing Counsel WP(C) NO. 17927 OF 2022

for the University, arguing that his client has

issued Ext.P13 because, going by Ext.P17 letter

issued by the Government of Kerala to them, the

fixing of workload of the College appears to be

in error. He then submitted that, as per the

declarations of the College, they have 77 hours

in the Physics Department; while, Ext.P11 makes

it evident that they have only 59 hours. He

submitted that, in any event of the matter,

neither of the afore figures are binding on the

University and that it is for them to make a

final decision as to the workload, and whether

it would be sufficient to accommodate the

fourth post.

5. The learned Government Pleader -

Smt.Parvathy K., submitted that the Government

has only brought to the notice of the

University the imperative of following the WP(C) NO. 17927 OF 2022

stipulations with respect to the workload and

the number of posts which can be offered. She

submitted that, therefore, they have no role to

play at this stage and it is for the University

to abide by the instructions given to them

through Ext.P17.

6. In reply, Sri.Paul Abraham Vakkanal

submitted that, even under Ext.P10 - which has

been subsequently clarified by Ext.P12 order -

the Government has made it limpid that a post

of 'Assistant Professor' will be available for

every 16 hours, or for the balance 9 hours and

more. He submitted that even assuming that the

facts stated in Ext.P17 can be accepted, the

College has 57 hours in the Physics Department

and therefore, that, mathematically, the

balance 9 hours would attract one additional

post of 'Assistant Professor'. He submitted WP(C) NO. 17927 OF 2022

that, therefore, there is no controversy at all

in this case, and that Ext.P13 has been issued

without proper thought by the University.

7. When I consider the afore submissions,

it is perspicuous that the real controversy

between the parties is as to whether there are

sufficient work hours in the College to allow

the appointment of the petitioner in the fourth

post in the Physics Department. This issue

certainly is in the realm of facts and will

have to be assessed and verified by the

University appropriately, because it is not

within the province of the Government to do so,

even going by the applicable Statutes. Further,

this Court has been stating repeatedly that the

University cannot treat themselves as being

subservient to the Government and has to act

autonomously, as they are expected under the WP(C) NO. 17927 OF 2022

Statutory Scheme.

Resultantly, I order this writ petition and

set aside Ext.P13; however, with a

consequential direction to the competent

Authority of the 6th respondent - University, to

immediately assess the workload of the

'Pavanatma College', Idukki, and then decide

whether the fourth post in the Physics

Department is allowable to them. This shall be

done, adverting to Exts.P10 and P12 Government

Orders; leading to necessary proceedings being

issued in this matter, after hearing the

Principal of the College, as expeditiously as

is possible, but not later than one month from

the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

On the afore exercise being completed and

if it is found that the fourth post is WP(C) NO. 17927 OF 2022

allowable, then certainly, necessary orders

approving the appointment of the petitioner,

subject to all other conditions being

satisfied, shall be issued within a period of

one month thereafter.

Needless to say, in such event, all

eligible benefits shall be disbursed to the

petitioner, without any avoidable delay.

At this time, Sri.Surin George Ipe

intervened to request that this Court to

clarify that the merits of the claim of the

petitioner has not been decided by this Court

affirmatively. Certainly, this Court has not

done so and I so clarify.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE akv WP(C) NO. 17927 OF 2022

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17927/2022

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O NO.260/2010/H. EDN WITH ANNEXURE ISSUED BY HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT DATED 20-08-2010.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 02-11-

2018 PUBLISHED IN MATRUBHUMI DAILY DATED 07-112018.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO: D2/463/2016/HEDN DATED 17-10-2018 ISSUED BY HIGHER EDN. DEPT APPOINTING THE GOVT. REPRESENTATIVE TO THE SELECTION COMMITTEE.

EXHIBIT P3(A) TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 14-01-2019 GIVEN BY COLLEGE TO THE UNIVERSITY

EXHIBIT P3(B) TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF EXPERTS PANEL DATED 02-02-2019 GIVEN TO COLLEGE BY UNIVERSITY

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE SELECTION COMMITTEE / RANK LIST DATED 05-03-2019 ISSUED BY CORPORATION EDUCATIONAL AGENCY.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE PETITIONER DATED 03-06-2019.

EXHIBIT P5(A) TRUE COPY OF THE JOINING REPORT OF THE PETITIONER DATED 06-06-2019.

EXHIBIT P5(B) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE PRINCIPAL-

IN-CHARGE BY WHICH THE JOINING REPORT AND APPOINTMENT ORDER WAS FORWARDED FOR APPROVAL TO THE UNIVERSITY DATED 27-06-2019

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BY R4 FIXING THE WORKLOAD AS 57 HOURS IN PHYSICS DEPT. DATED 27.08-2016.

WP(C) NO. 17927 OF 2022

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER FROM R3 TO R2 SEEKING CLARIFICATION REGARDING THE 4TH POST DATED 04-112016.

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED FOR INFORMATION OF RTI ACT DATED 10-05-2017.

EXHIBIT P8(A) TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY FROM PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER DATED 07-06-2017.

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE UNIVERSITY ORDER DATED 18-

092017GRANTING APPROVAL TO THE APPOINTMENT OF SHRI. MATHEW K. VARGHESE MADE IN 2013 W.E.F 03.06-2014.

EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O NO.93/18/H. EDN DATED 09-05-2018.

EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE WORKLOAD STATEMENTS AS PER THE RUNNING SYLLABUS APPROVED BY THE ACADEMIC COUNCIL OF THE UNIVERSITY.

EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(MS) NO. 313/20/H.EDN DATED 11-09-2020 MAKING IT CLEAR THAT G.O (MS) NO. 155/20/H.EDN DATED 01-04-2020, WILL HAVE EFFECT FROM 01-06-2020 ONLY.

EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE UNIVERSITY ORDER NO.

118/131/2/ ACADEMIC/20 DATED 25-11-2020 DENYING THE APPROVAL OF PETITIONER'S APPOINTMENT.

EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION, FILED AGAINST EXT. P-13 ORDER, DATED 09-12-2020.

EXHIBIT P15 A TRUE COPY OF THE IA 3/2020 DATED 10-12-

2020 TO WITHDRAW W.P(C) 14975/2020, WITH LIBERTY TO FILE A FRESH ONE.

EXHIBIT P15(A) A TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 21-12-2020 IN WP(C) NO. 14975 OF 2020.

EXHIBIT P16 A TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO. 28112 OF 2020 DATED 16-12-2020.

WP(C) NO. 17927 OF 2022

EXHIBIT P17 A TRUE COPY OF THE GOVT. LETTER DATED 27-4-

2017, GIVEN TO THE UNIVERSITY.

EXHIBIT P18 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 14-5-2021 BY THE UNIVERSITY.

EXHIBIT P19 A TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO. F3/49/2021 DATED 18-2.2021