Disposed

The Manager, M.A.M.O. College v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC18 Jun 2008WP(C)/10901/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought directions to constitute a Selection Committee for lecturer vacancies. The court recorded the Government's submission to nominate an expert and directed the University to provide a list of subject experts to the Educational Agency within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the University of Calicut to forward the panel of subject experts to the Educational Agency within two weeks.

The Manager, M.A.M.O. College Vs State of Kerala — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH JUNE 2008 / 28TH JYAISHTA 1930

¶5

WP(C).No. 10901 of 2008(W)

¶6

--------------------------

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

¶9

THE MANAGER, M.A.M.O. COLLEGE, MUKKOM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SMT.S.KARTHIKA

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

¶13

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO GOVT. HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM.

¶14

DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, VIKAS BHAVAN, TRIVANDRUM.

¶15

UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, TENHIPALAM, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O., REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.

¶16

R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER

¶17

R3 BY STANDING COUNSEL FOR CALICUT UNIVERSITY

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶21

EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.GA/F5/11343/82 DATED 8.3.1983

¶22

EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER -DO- DATED 18.9.1983

¶23

EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23.7.2007 ISSUED BY THE PRINCIPAL OF THE PETITIONER'S COLLEGE

¶24

EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 13.9.2007 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶25

EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.G.I.S.S.1/07 DATED 3.11.2007

¶26

EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 23.7.2007 SUBMITTED BY PRINCIPAL OF THE PETITIONER'S COLLEGE.

¶27

//TRUE COPY//

¶28

K.T. SANKARAN,J..

¶29

W.P.(C) No.10901 of 2008 W

¶30

Dated this the 18^th day of June, 2008.

¶31

J U D G M E N T

¶32

The petitioner is the Manager of Muhammed Abdul Rahiman Memorial Orphanage College, Manassery, Kozhikode District. The college is an aided college, affiliated to the University of Calicut. It is stated by the petitioner that there are three retirement vacancies of Lectures and all the vacancies have to be filled up as per Chapter 2 of the Calicut University (Conditions of Service of Teachers and Members of Non-teaching Staff) First Statutes 1979. The appointment of the teachers shall be made only from a list prepared by the Selection Committee constituted by the Educational Agency. The Selection Committee shall consist of two representatives of the Educational Agency; a person nominated by the Educational Agency from among the Principal, Head of the Department and Professors with concurrence of the University and one member chosen by the Educational Agency from among the Secretary to Government and the District Collector. The Selection Committee is not constituted.

¶33

WP(C) No.10901/2008

¶34

¶35

The reliefs prayed for in the Writ Petition are the

¶36

following:-

¶37

a) to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction directing the 1^st respondent to depute a Govt. nominee to the Selection Committee for appointment to the post of lecturer in Hindi, Malayalam and Economics in the petitioner's college at the earliest, at any rate, on or before 15.4.2008;

¶38

b) to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 3^rd respondent to depute Expert Members to the Selection Committee for appointment to the post of lecturer in Hindi, Malayalam and Economics in the petitioner's college at the earliest at any rate on or before 15.4.2008; and

¶39

c) to pass such other and further orders as are deemed just and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶40

WP(C) No.10901/2008

¶41

¶42

Learned Government Pleader, on instructions,

¶43

submits that the first respondent will depute the Government nominee to the Selection Committee within a period of one month. This submission is recorded. Therefore, no further direction need be issued in respect of relief No.a.

¶44

In so far as relief No.b is concerned, the stand of the University is made clear in the counter affidavit filed by them. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the University has prepared a subject-wise list of subject experts. The University is not obliged to depute any expert to the Selection Committee. The petitioner cannot seek a relief directing the University to depute an expert to the Selection Committee and, therefore, relief No.b is not maintainable.

¶45

The Educational Agency has to constitute the Selection Committee. It is necessary that the Selection Committee should consist of a subject expert. The subject expert shall be included in the Selection Committee with the concurrence of the University. The petitioner has submitted Ext.P6 representation dated 23.7.2007 to the Registrar of Calicut University requesting to issue a panel of subject experts for the purpose of nominating to the Staff Selection Committee. It is stated that no reply was issued by the University. Therefore, it is necessary to issue a direction to the University to make available to the Educational Agency the panel of subject experts. The University shall forward the panel of subject experts to the Educational Agency within a period of two weeks. The learned Government

¶46

WP(C) No.10901/2008

¶47

¶48

Pleader submitted that the constitution of the Selection Committee by nominating the Government nominee should not be construed as concurrence by the Government as to the existence of the vacancies. The request is reasonable and liable to be accepted. It is so recorded.

¶49

The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

¶50

K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE.

¶51

cks

The Manager, M.A.M.O. College v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Manager, M.A.M.O. College v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Thiruvambadi Devaswom Vs State of Kerala

Sree Saraswathy Vidyalayam Vs State of Kerala

Dr.Syama Kumari Vs State of Kerala

B.Vasanthakumari Amma Vs State of Kerala

T.C.Mathew Vs State of Kerala

Ruma Raman Vs State of Kerala