Kerala High Court
Dr.Bindu M.Nambiar vs Sri.S.M.Vijayanand on 6 January, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA
FRIDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 16TH POUSHA, 1944
CON.CASE(C) NO. 1712 OF 2016
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.02.2016 IN OP(KAT)
1329/2013 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONER/PETITIONER:
DR.BINDU M.NAMBIAR
AGED 47 YEARS, D/O. ADVOCATE M.C.NAMBIAR,
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE,
ERNAKULAM.
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.JAJU BABU (SR.)
SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 & 2:
1 SRI.S.M.VIJAYANAND,
IAS, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE
PETITIONER, CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF
KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2 B.SRINIVAS,
IAS, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE
PETITIONER, PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
Con. Case (C) No.1712 of 2016 2
BY ADVS.
SRI.A.J.VARGHESE SR GP
SRI.ARUN THOMAS
SRI.JENNIS STEPHEN
SRI.VIJAY V. PAUL
SMT.KARTHIKA MARIA
SMT.VEENA RAVEENDRAN
SRI.ANIL SEBASTIAN PULICKEL
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP
FOR ADMISSION ON 06.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Con. Case (C) No.1712 of 2016 3
P.B.SURESH KUMAR & C.S.SUDHA, JJ.
-----------------------------------------------
Contempt Case (C) No.1712 of 2016
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 6th day of January, 2023
JUDGMENT
P.B.Suresh Kumar, J.
This proceedings is initiated alleging wilful disobedience
of the directions issued by this court in terms of the judgment in O.P.
(KAT) No.1329 of 2013.
2. The petitioner was an Associate Professor in the
Government Law College, Ernakulam. According to the petitioner, in
terms of the UGC Regulations, 2010, she was qualified to be
appointed as Principal, and despite the State Government having
adopted the UGC Regulations, 2010, in the seniority list prepared,
persons who do not possess the qualifications prescribed by the UGC
were also included and she was excluded. Though the petitioner
approached the Kerala Administrative Tribunal for appropriate relief,
the proceedings instituted by the petitioner in this regard was
dismissed. The original petition was instituted, in the circumstances,
challenging the decision of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal and
seeking orders directing the respondents to include the petitioner in
the select list and grant her all consequential benefits, including
appointment as Principal. There was also a prayer in the original
petition to direct the second respondent therein to prepare the
select list of candidates fulfilling the qualifications prescribed by the
UGC Regulations, 2010 for the post of Principal and effect
appointments therefrom. A Full Bench of this Court considered the
original petition along with a batch of similar matters and allowed
the same declaring that appointments made in contravention to the
UGC Regulations, 2010 are illegal, and directing the concerned
respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner in accordance
with her qualifications, seniority and suitability, along with other
eligible candidates and make appointments in accordance with law.
3. Though the Government challenged the judgment
of the Full Bench before the Apex Court, it was conceded in the
proceedings before the Apex Court that the State is willing to
implement the judgment of the Full Bench as far as the parties
before this Court are concerned. It is seen that pursuant to the said
undertaking, during the pendency of the contempt case, the
Government issued Annexure D order on 29.03.2017, in terms of
which the petitioner was provisionally promoted to the cadre of
Principal and later, in terms of Annexure G order issued on
15.10.2018, the provisional promotion of the petitioner was
regularised.
4. Despite Annexures D and G orders issued during
the pendency of this proceedings, the petitioner is pursuing this
proceedings taking the stand that if the direction of this Court is
complied with in accordance with the UGC Regulations, she would
have become Principal much prior to 29.03.2017.
5. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner as
also the learned Government Pleader.
6. The prayers made by the petitioner in the original
petition read thus:
i) Call for the records leading to Annexure E order of the Kerala
Administrative Tribunal in T.A.No.7290/2012 and set aside
same;
ii) Allow T.A No.7290/12 of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal,
Thiruvananthapuram and direct the respondents to include the
petitioner in Annexure D selection list and grant her all
consequential benefits including appointment as Principal
forthwith;
iii) direct the 2 nd Respondent to prepare a select list of
candidates fulfilling the qualifications prescribed by UGC
Regulations 2010 including the petitioner for the appointment
to the post of Principal of Law Colleges and effect
appointments there from;
iv) Issue such other and further relief as this Honourable Court
may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the
case;
and v) award costs to the petitioner;
As revealed from the extracted portion of the original petition, the
prayer of the petitioner was only for a direction to appoint the
petitioner as Principal forthwith. The relief granted to the petitioner
as contained in paragraph 24 of the judgment reads thus:
"24. Having seen the facts of the pleadings of the parties, as
aforesaid, in all cases, except W.P(C). 15739/13, the prayer of
the petitioners and the appellants is for compliance of the UGC
Regulations, 2010 and to make appointments in terms thereof.
This prayer, in the light of our conclusions hereinabove,
deserves acceptance. Therefore, the writ petitions, except
W.P(C).15739/13, the writ appeal and the OP (KAT) have to be
allowed declaring that appointments made in contravention of
the UGC Regulations, 2010, which are under challenge, are
illegal. Consequently, the appointing authorities concerned will
consider the claims of the petitioners herein in accordance
with their qualifications, seniority and suitability, along with
other eligible candidates and make appointments in
accordance with law."
In the light of the prayer made by the petitioner and the relief
granted to her, there is absolutely no basis for the claim now made
by the petitioner that she should have been appointed as Principal
with effect from an early date, as such a claim was not raised by the
petitioner nor such a claim was adjudicated by this court. If that be
so, the petitioner cannot be heard to contend that there is wilful
disobedience of the directions issued by this Court so as to sustain
this proceedings instituted under the Contempt of Courts Act.
The Contempt of Court Case, in the circumstances, is
only to be dismissed and we do so.
Sd/-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.
Sd/-
C.S.SUDHA, JUDGE.
YKB
APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 1712/2016
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.02.2016
IN OP(KAT) NO.1329/2013 PASSED BY THIS
HON'BLE COURT.
Annexure B COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 09.06.2016
ALONG WITH SENIORITY LIST OF
LECTURES(SELECTION GRADE)
ANNEXURE C TRUE COPY OF G.O.(P) NO.10/2017/H.EDN
DATED 19.3.2017 ISSUED BY THE
GOVERNMENT
ANNEXURE D TRUE COPY OF G.O.(RT.)
NO.610/2017/H.EDN DATED 29.03.2017
ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT
ANNEXURE E TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.07.2018
OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
IN SLP (CIVIL) NO.18938 AND CONNECTED
CASES
ANNEXURE F TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(P)
NO.24/2018/H.EDN DATED 30.08.2018
ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT.
ANNEXURE G TRUE COPY OF G.O.(RT)
NO.1872/2018/H.EDN DATED 15.10.2018
ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT.
ANNEXURE H TRUE COPY OF G.O.(RT)NO.1121/2020/h.EDN
DATED 8.09.2020.
ANNEXURE I TRUE COPY OF G.O.(RT) NO.867/2022/H.EDN
DATED 10.06.2022
ANNEXURE J TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION VIDE
NO.C1/149/20250-H.EDN DATED 10.06.2022
ISSUED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT TO THE
PETITIONER
Annexure K TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT
WITHOUT EXHIBITS FILED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT IN W.P.(C).NO.16224 OF 2020
BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT.
Annexure L TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
22.08.2022 IN W.P.(C).NO.16224/2020 OF
THIS HON'BLE COURT.
Annexure M TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
27.09.2021 IN OP(KAT).NO.40 OF 2021 OF
THIS HON'BLE COURT.
