Dr.Jamaludheenkunju vs State Of Kerala
2025 Latest Caselaw 6588 Ker

Kerala High Court

Dr.Jamaludheenkunju vs State Of Kerala on 11 June, 2025

                                                           2025:KER:41157
W.P.(C).No.9089 of 2014
                                     1
                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                 PRESENT

                    THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.MANU

     WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 21ST JYAISHTA, 1947

                          WP(C) NO. 9089 OF 2014


PETITIONER:
              DR.JAMALUDHEENKUNJU
              (RETIRED PRINCIPAL), MES MAMPAD COLLEGE, MAMPAD,
              KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, SAJEES, THAIVILAPUTHENPURAYIL,
              PADINJATTEKARA P.O., THEVALAKKARA,
              KOLLAM DISTRICT-690 524.
              BY ADVS.
              SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY
              SRI.S.A.ANAND
              SMT.L.AMMU PILLAI
              SHRI.K.A.BALAN
              SHRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO
              SMT.N.SANTHA


RESPONDENTS:
     1     STATE OF KERALA
           REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
           HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
           THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
     2     THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION
           THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.
     3     THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION
           KOZHIKODE-673 018.
     4     THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT
           CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O., KOZHIKODE, PIN-673 635,
           REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.

              BY ADVS.
              SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, CALICUT UNIVERSITY

OTHER PRESENT:
           SMT RASHMI K M, SR.GP

      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD            ON
11.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                                          2025:KER:41157
W.P.(C).No.9089 of 2014
                                    2


                             S.MANU, J.
               -------------------------------------------
                       W.P.(C).No.9089 of 2014
              --------------------------------------------
                Dated this the 11th day of June, 2025

                             JUDGMENT

Petitioner is seeking a declaration that he is entitled to to

be placed as Principal (Special Grade) for the period from

1.6.2000 to 31.3.2001 with all consequential service and

monetary benefits. Directions consequent to such declaration

are also sought.

2. Petitioner was appointed as Principal of MES College,

Ponnani on 01.06.1999. He was transferred and posted as

Principal of MES College, Mampad later. He worked as Principal

of MES College, Mampad from 01.06.2000 to 31.3.2001. On

31.3.2001, he retired on attaining the age of superannuation.

Petitioner submitted Ext.P6 request on 14.12.2012 to the

Chairman and Correspondent, MES Central College Committee

requesting that he may be granted Special Grade Principalship

with effect from 1.6.2000. He substantiated his request, 2025:KER:41157

pointing out that his two predecessors-in-office were granted

the said benefit. By order dated 6.4.2013 the Chairman

promoted and placed the petitioner as Special Grade Principal

with effect from 1.6.2000 subject to the approval of Calicut

University.

3. When the matter was placed before the University,

the University, by communication dated 29.6.2013, requested to

obtain sanction order from the Government to include the

College in the list of institutions having Special Grade Principal.

Petitioner submitted a representation to the Government on

23.7.2013 requesting to take a favourable decision.

4. The 4th respondent University on 17.3.2014 issued

Ext.P10 to the Chairman of MES Colleges rejecting the request

to grant the benefit to the petitioner. It was pointed out in

Ext.P10 that the Government of Kerala vide an order dated

18.9.2003 had issued list of 19 private aided colleges as Special

Grade Colleges and MES College, Mampad is not included in the

said list. Further it was stated that the college does not have

sufficient strength of students. Regarding the benefit granted to 2025:KER:41157

two former Principals of the College, the Government observed

that the same was granted as special cases in the light of

judgments issued by this Court in their cases. A reference was

made to a letter dated 11.2.2014 issued by the Deputy Director

of Collegiate Education, Kozhikode to the Registrar of the

University clarifying the stand of the Government.

5. Petitioner is assailing Ext.P10 issued by the Calicut

University on various grounds. The 3rd respondent filed a

counter affidavit contending that the petitioner's claim is not

sustainable.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner,

the learned Government Pleader and the learned Standing

Counsel for Calicut University.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to Ext.P1

Government Order dated 13.3.1991. By the said G.O.

Government decided that the Principals of Colleges with a

minimum of 5 post graduate courses and student strength of

more than 2000 will be placed in the scale of 4500-7300

provided that they have put in a minimum of 16 years of service 2025:KER:41157

and are placed in Lecturer (Selection Grade)/Reader. Special

allowance of Rs.500/- was also decided to be paid to the

Principals in the grade of Rs.3700-5700. According to the

learned counsel for the petitioner, MES College, Mampad

satisfied the parameters stipulated in Ext.P1. On 8.9.1993, an

order was issued by the Higher Education Department to the

effect that 19 colleges listed in the order will be eligible for the

post of Special Grade Principals with effect from 01.01.1986 in

terms of the conditions stipulated in the UGC Scheme and

Ext.P1 G.O.

8. Ext.P2 is another Government Order dated

21.12.1999. In paragraph 5.2 of the said order, it has been

stated that Colleges with more than 2000 students and

minimum 5 post graduate courses are classified as Special

Grade Colleges. It also mentions that the total number of

Special Grade Principals will be retained as such, in spite of the

possible reduction in students strength in some of the colleges.

Further it has been stated that the categorization of colleges

into Special Grade based on students strength and number of 2025:KER:41157

post graduate courses will be dispensed with.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner heavily relied

on judgments of this Court in W.P.(C)Nos.11382/2005 and

9907/2011. The first case was filed by Mr.V.Mamukoya who was

Principal of MES College, Mampad. W.P.(C)No.9907/2011 was

filed by Mr.P.K.Noorudeen who retired as Principal on 31.5.2000.

Both of them were directed to be provided with the benefit of

Special Grade, by this Court. This Court accepted their

contention that the stand of the Government that Principals of

no colleges other than those mentioned in the order dated

18.9.1993 can be considered as Special Grade Principals was

discriminatory. In Ext.P3 judgment, this Court noted that the

Government had granted benefit of Special Grade to Principals

of two other colleges as special cases. Learned counsel

submitted that the petitioner herein being the successor in office

of the petitioner's in W.P.(C)Nos.11382/2005 and 9907/2011, is

entitled for the same benefit.

10. The learned Government Pleader submitted that by

Ext.P2 order dated 21.12.1999 the practice of categorizing 2025:KER:41157

colleges into Special Grade based on students strength and

number of post graduate courses was dispensed with. She

submitted that the petitioners in W.P.(C)Nos.11382/2005 and

9907/2011 were appointed as Principals before issuance of

Ext.P2 order. She also explained with respect to the reference

in Ext.P3 judgment to two instances of granting of the benefit

with respect to PSMO College, Thirurangadi and

Guruvayoorappan College, Kozhikode that in those cases the

sanctioning of Special Grade was well before the issuance of

Ext.P2 G.O. She contended that with the issuance of Ext.P2 G.O.

practice of categorizing the colleges into Special Grade was

totally stopped. According to the learned Government Pleader,

the benefit of Special Grade Principalship was not granted to any

one appointed to the post of Principal other than in the 19

colleges mentioned in Ext.R3(a) after issuance of Ext.P2 order.

She submitted that the petitioner cannot place reliance over

Exts.P3 and P4 judgments which were rendered in the case of

predecessors in office who were appointed as Principals prior to

the issuance of Ext.P2. The learned Government Pleader 2025:KER:41157

therefore submitted that the contentions of the petitioner are

devoid of merits.

11. The learned Standing Counsel for Calicut University

argued that the petitioner is not entitled for any benefits on

account of the laches and delay on his part. Petitioner retired

on 31.3.2001 and Ext.P6 request was made only on 14.12.2012,

after lapse of more than 11 years. He further contended that

the appointment of the petitioner as Principal in MES College,

Mampad was not against a post of 'Special Grade Principal'. He

further submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable for

the reason that the petitioner had an effective remedy of

approaching the University Tribunal.

12. The learned counsel for the petitioner in rejoinder

submitted that the Government is not justified to contend that

the benefit extended to the predecessors in office of the

petitioner cannot be extended to him. The learned counsel

pointed out that Ext.P1 G.O. prescribed only two conditions to

treat a college as a Special Grade College and a college

satisfying the conditions shall not be denied the status of 2025:KER:41157

Special Grade College. He contended that list of colleges in

Ext.R3(a) cannot be considered as exhaustive since the

Government admittedly extended benefit of Special Grade to

Principals of some other colleges also.

13. Ext.P2 Government Order dated 21.12.1999 clearly

states that the categorization of colleges into Special Grade

based on students strength and number of post graduate

courses will be dispensed with. The said categorical statement in

Ext.P2 clearly reveals the change of policy of the Government.

Therefore, after issuance of Ext.P2 no college can claim Special

Grade status even if it has more than 2000 students at the

minimum 5 post graduate courses. No challenge is raised

against this decision of the Government. Thus, the scenario had

changed before the petitioner was posted as Principal in MES

College, Mampad. True that his predecessors were found

eligible for the benefit by this Court. However, as rightly

pointed out by the learned Government Pleader both of them

were appointed before issuance of Ext.P2. Perusal of Ext.P3

judgment which was followed in Ext.P4 shows that this Court 2025:KER:41157

had taken note of the fact that benefit of Special Grade was

provided to the Principals of two colleges which are not included

in Ext.R3(a) Government Order. The contention raised by the

Government in W.P.(C)No.11382/2005 was that only those

colleges enlisted in Ext.R3(a) are eligible to be considered as

Special Grade Colleges and MES College, Mampad not being one

included in the list cannot be treated as a Special Grade College.

It is solely in the context of this contention and without

considering any other aspects, this Court decided against the

Government and granted the benefit to the petitioner in W.P.

(C)No.11382/2005 taking note of the fact that the same benefit

was provided to the Principals of two colleges not enlisted in

Ext.R3(a). The said judgment was followed in Ext.P4.

Nonetheless as rightly pointed out by the learned Government

Pleader Principals of those two colleges as well as the

predecessors of the petitioner who are the petitioners in Exts.P3

and P4 were appointed as Principals prior to the issuance of

Ext.P2 Government Order in 1999. Therefore, I find that the

petitioner who was appointed after the practice of categorizing 2025:KER:41157

colleges as Special Grade was dispensed with by the

Government cannot raise a claim for similar treatment. He

cannot claim parity with those who were appointed as Principals

before the issuance of Ext.P2. Hence, the reliance placed on

Exts.P3 and P4 judgments by the petitioner is not helpful to

him.

14. It is very relevant to note that the petitioner who

retired on 31.3.2001 raised his claim for the first time by

submitting Ext.P6 request only on 14.12.2012. Petitioner has

made an attempt to explain the delay on his part by stating in

paragraph 13 of the statement of fact that he thought it fit to

wait as the issues relating to placement of his predecessors

were yet to be finalised at the time of his retirement. The said

explanation is not sufficient to hold that there was no delay or

laches on the part of the petitioner. It is pertinent to note that

this writ petition was filed after about 13 years from his date of

retirement.

15. In view of the foregoing discussion, I am of the view

that the claim of the petitioner is only to be rejected for want of 2025:KER:41157

merits and also on account of delay and laches. Hence, this writ

petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

S.MANU JUDGE skj 2025:KER:41157

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9089/2014

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) NO.57/91/H.EDN DATED 13/3/1991.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRCT OF THE G.O. (P) NO.171/99/H.Edn. DATED 21/12/1999.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 5/12/2008 IN WPC NO.11382/2005 OF THIS COURT EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 23/2/2012 IN WPC NO.9907/2011 OF THIS COURT EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.MES/AC/E/1673/98(1) DATED 3/5/1999 OF THE CORRESPONDENT AND CHARIMAN OF THE MUSLIM EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 14/12/2012 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN AND CORRESPONDENT OF MES CENTRAL COLLEGE COMMITTEE.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.MES/AC/E2113/2013 DATED 6/4/2013 OF THE CORRESPONDENT AND CHAIRMAN OF THE MUSLIM EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.14416/G&A-II-

SPLCEL2/2013/CU DATED 29/6/2013 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 23/7/2013 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT WITHOUT ITS ENCLOSURES.

EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.23393/E&A-II-

SPLCEL 3/2014/CU DATED 17.3.2014 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT