Kerala High Court
Dr. Mohanlal E.K vs The Board Of Management on 27 May, 2022
WP(C) No.93/2022 1/6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
Friday, the 27th day of May 2022 / 6th Jyaishta, 1944
WP(C) NO. 93 OF 2022
PETITIONER:
DR. MOHANLAL E.K., AGED 55 YEARS, ASSISTANT LIBRARIAN, COLLEGE OF
VETERINARY & ANIMAL SCIENCES POOKODE, WYNAD, RESIDING AT FLAT NO.20,
KENDRIYA BHAVAN, M.S.BABURAJ ROAD, KALLAI P.O., KOZHIKODE - 673 003.
RESPONDENT:
1. THE BOARD OF MANAGEMENT, KERALA VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCES
UNIVERSITY, POOKODE WYNAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE CHANCELLOR.
2. THE REGISTRAR, KERALA VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCES UNIVERSITY,
POOKODE, WYNAD.
3. THE DEAN, KERALA VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCES UNIVERSITY, POOKODE,
WYNAD.
Writ petition (civil) praying inter alia that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed along with the WP(C) the High Court be
pleased to order restraining the respondents from terminating the service
of the petitioner as on 22-05-2022 and to permit to continue in service
upto 22-05-2026 pending disposal of the Writ Petition.
This petition coming on for admission upon perusing the petition and
the affidavit filed in support of WP(C) and upon hearing the arguments of
M/S P.V.JAYACHANDRAN, VENUGOPALAN MENON Advocates for the petitioners and
of STANDING COUNSEL for the respondents, the court passed the following:
WP(C) No.93/2022 2/6
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, J.
-------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.93 of 2022
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 27th day of May, 2022
ORDER
I have heard Sri.P.V.Jayachandran, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Smt. Aysha Youseff, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the
respondents.
2. Sri.P.V.Jayachandran, the learned counsel would refer to Exts.P3 to P8
and it is argued that the petitioner was authorised to take classes, conduct practical
and viva-voce examinations and also impart instructions for PG and PhD students.
According to the learned counsel, a person similarly placed as the petitioner had
approached this Court seeking to declare that he is eligible to be reckoned as persons
coming within the purview of Section 2(26) of the Kerala Agricultural University Act,
1971 and to permit him to continue in service till he attains the age of 60 years by
virtue of Section 42(4) of the Act and for grant of consequential benefits. A Division
Bench of this Court by Ext.P9 judgment had occasion to consider the entire aspects
and had held thus in para 29 and 30 of the judgment.
WP(C) No.93/2022 3/6
W.P.(C) No. 93 of 2022
'29. On going through the definition of the term 'Teacher' under
Section 2 (26) of the Kerala Agricultural University Act, it is to noted that
the specific words "recognized by university for imparting", as it appears
there, are conspicuously absent while defining the term teacher under
Section 2 (27) of the Kerala University Act or The Calicut University Act.
Similarly, it is to be noted that the words "and whose appointment has
approved by the University" as the terminology appears under Section
2(27) of the Kerala University Act or the Calicut University Act are not
there in Section 2 (26) of the Kerala Agricultural University Act. It is only
by virtue of the above key words and by virtue of the separate definition
of term 'Teacher of the University' as defined under Section 2 (28) of the
Kerala University Act or the Calicut University Act that the sanctity of the
appointment has been highlighted/glorified in the Division Bench
judgments cited supra. In so far as the above key words are absent in
the Kerala Agricultural University Act and since there is no separate
definition of the term 'Teacher of the University' in the Kerala Agricultural
University Act and further since Section 2(26) of the Kerala Agricultural
University Act also provides for identification of those who have been
recognized by the University for imparting instructions also as 'teachers',
the definition of the term 'Teacher' as it appears in Section 2 (26) of the
Kerala Agricultural University Act stands on a different footing, than the
provision under the other University enactments as referred to above.
For this reason, the verdicts passed by the various Division Benches as
referred to above, do not place any bar on the way of the writ
petitioners herein [who were identified by the Kerala Agricultural
University for imparting instructions and in terms of the curricula and
syllabi prescribed by the ICAR and followed by the University, thus
recognizing them in this regard to impart instructions], and they are
eligible to be declared as 'teachers'. The contention raised to the
contrary stands repelled and it is ordered accordingly.
30. In view of the declaration made by this Court with reference
to Section 2 (26) of the Act and scope of the Statute No. 1211/78, we
are of the definite view that the matter requires to be considered by the
Executive Committee, more so in view of the recommendations made by
WP(C) No.93/2022 4/6
W.P.(C) No. 93 of 2022
the Committees concerned, which now stand placed before the
Executive Committee. This being the position, the suggestion made by
Dr. Jim Committee in the 'Supplementary Note' [which was stated as not
considered] while making recommendations for enhancing of the
retirement age of the Library Staff from 55/56 years to 60 years "even
by amending the Statute" is not at all a requirement and that result can
be achieved in view of the declaration already made by this Court. Even
though we do not support the view taken by the learned single Judge
holding that since the University has already extended the benefit to Dr.
Ambili as per Ext. P5, it is liable to be equally made applicable to the
writ petitioners as well [it turn directing the University to have the
matter considered without any declaration of law], we do not find it
necessary to interdict the direction to have the matter reconsidered, in
view of our declaration made with reference to Section 2 (26) of the Act
and as to the scope of the Statute No. 1211/78.'
3. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner is also entitled to similar
treatment in view of the law laid down in Ext.P9. It is submitted that the 2nd
respondent has directed the petitioner to submit the pension papers as if the
retirement of the petitioner is on 31.05.2022 without taking note of the observations in
Ext.P9 judgment.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents seeks an adjournment to get
instructions and to place on record a counter.
5. Having considered the facts and circumstances, and in view of the law
laid down by this Court in Ext.P9, as an interim measure, there will be a direction to
WP(C) No.93/2022 5/6
W.P.(C) No. 93 of 2022
the respondents to refrain from terminating the service of the petitioner for a period of
six weeks and he shall be permitted to continue in service.
The counter-affidavit shall be placed on record within a period of four weeks.
Post on 22.06.2022.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V,
JUDGE
NS
27-05-2022 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar
WP(C) No.93/2022 6/6
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 93/2022
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF SUBMISSION COVAS/PKT/ACAD/2341/2016 DATED
31/8/2016.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING NO.KVASU/COVAS/ESST(I),
2611 (1) 2012 DATED 20/10/2017.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.KVASU/PKT/ACAD/2341/17
DATED 23/10/2017.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR CVAS/PKT/ACAD/31339/2019
DATED 27/8/2019.
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR CVAS/PKT/ACAD/31260/2020
DATED 21/12/2020.
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE NO.KVASU/COVAS/PKD/ESTT(1)
2611(1)/2012 DATED 8/9/2021.
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT IN WA NO.1895, 1907,
1905 OF 2016 DATED 13/04/2018.
