Partly allowed

Dr.P.R.Jayasree v. University of Calicut.

Kerala HC11 Dec 2008WP(C)/4317/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged rejection of her candidature for Lecturer post due to age limit despite being a long-term guest lecturer. Court held petitioner eligible for age relaxation. Directed University to afford hearing to selected appointees before taking prejudicial action pending Chancellor's review.

What did the court decide?

Directed University to consider petitioner's claim on merits and afford hearing to respondents 3 and 4 before taking action on adverse enquiry report.

Dr.P.R.Jayasree Vs University of Calicut. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 11TH DECEMBER 2008 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 4317 of 2006(L) ------------------------PETITIONER(S): ------------------

¶4

DR.P.R.JAYASREE, PRESENTLY WORKING AS ASST.PROFESSOR OF MOLECULAR BIOLOGY, SCHOOL OF HEALTH SCIENCES, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, CALICUT UNIVERSITY.P.O, PIN-673 635, RESIDING AT C-11, QUARTERS, CALICUT UNIVERSITY CAMPUS, CALICUT UNIVERSITY.P.O.

¶5

BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶6

RESPONDENT(S): -----------------1. UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, CALICUT UNIVERSITY.P.O, PIN-673 635.

¶7

2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, UNIVERSITY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, CALICUT UNIVERSITY.P.O, PIN-673 635.

¶8

3. DR.SEBASTIAN.C.D, HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHER, ST.JUDE'S HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, VELLARIKUNDU.P.O, PARAPPA VIA., KASARAGOD-671 533.

¶9

4. DR.MANOGEM E.M, 39/3333, EAST END, 3RD RAILWAY, FCY-OVER KOZHIKODE-673 001.

¶10

ADV. SRI.P.K.IBRAHIM FOR R3 SRI.N.SUKUMARAN FOR R4 SRI.S.SHYAM FOR R4 SRI.N.K.KARNIS FOR R4 SRI.S.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR, SC, CALICUT UTY FOR R1,R2 SRI.E.S.ASHRAF, SC, CALICUT UNIVERSITY FOR R1,2

¶11

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

WPC NO.4317/06

¶13

APPENDIX

¶14

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶15

EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF MEMO DT 6.8.92 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶16

EXT.P1(a): TRUE COPY OF PH.D DEGREE CERTIFICATE DT 7.10.1992 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶17

EXT.P1(b): TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT 15.6.93 ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR INDIAN INSTITUTEOF SCIENCE, BANGALORE.

¶18

EXT.P1(c): TRUE COPY OF OFFICE ORDER DT 6.7.1994 ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE,BANGALORE.

¶19

EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE DT 23.5.2002 ISSUED BY DEPARTMENT OF BIOTECHNOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT.

¶20

EXT.P2(a): TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.GAII/F2/3681/2001 DT 8.8.2001 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶21

EXT.P2(b): TRE COPY OF ORDER NO.GA.II/G1/2729/2000(ii)DT. 29.8.2001 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶22

EXT.P2(c): TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE DT. 18.2.2005 ISSUED BY SCHOOL OF HEALTH SCIENCES,UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT.

¶23

EXT.P2(d): TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.GA.III/G1/16446/2002 DT 3.2.2005 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶24

EXT.P2(e): TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.GA.III/GA/1623/2004 DT 8.8.2005 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶25

EXT.P2(f): TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.G.III/G1/1543/04(4) DT 16.1.2006 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶26

EXT.P2(g): TRUE COPY OF LIST OF PUBLICATIONS OF THE PETITIONER.

¶27

EXT.P2(h): TRUE COPY OF “INFORMATION FOR CONTRIBUTORS” ISSUED BY “CURRENT SCIENCE”.

¶28

EXT.P2(i): TRUE COPY OF COMMUNITY CERTIFICATEISSUED BY TAHSILDAR.

¶29

EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF SELECTION NOTIFICATION NO.GAII/C1/2149/04 DT 11.1.2005 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE POST OF LECTURER (OPEN) IN ZOOLOGY.

¶30

EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF SELECTION NOTIFICATION NO.GA.II/C1/2149/04 DT 18.4.2005 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE POST OF LECTURER (ETB) IN ZOOLOGY.

¶31

WPC NO.4317/06

¶32

-2-

¶33

EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.AII/419492/85/GW DT 1.7.1985 ISSUED BY KERAL PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION TO 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶34

EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF INTERVIEW MEMO DT 27.10.2005 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPODNENT FOR THE POST OF LECTURER (OPEN) IN ZOOLOGY.

¶35

EXT.P6(a): TRUE COPY OF INTERVIEW MEMO DT 27.10.2005 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE POST OF LECTURER (ETB) IN ZOOLOGY.

¶36

EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT 18.8.2005 IN WPC 24565/05. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF TABULATION SHEET AS PRODUCED INCONNECTED WP 36441/05.

¶37

EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.GA.II/E1/3265/95 DT 31.7.1997 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶38

EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 12.8.2003 IN OP NO.16620/2002.

¶39

EXT.P11: TRUE COPY OF MEMO NO.GAII/F1/1035/06 DT 4.4.06 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT SELECTING AND APPOINTING THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE POST OF LECTURER (OPEN) IN ZOOLOGY, NOTIFIED AS PER EXT.P3 NOTIFICATION NO.GAII/C1/2149/04 DT 11.1.2005.

¶40

EXT.P12: TRUE COPY OF MEMO NO.GAII/F1/1035/06 DT 4.4.06 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT SELECTING AND APPOINTING THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE POST OF LECTURER (ETB) IN ZOOLOGY, NOTIFIED AS PER EXT.P4 NOTIFICATION O.GAII/C1/2149/04 DT 4.4.2006.

¶41

EXT.P13: TRUE COPYOF RANK LISTNO.EB.XII/1/1999 DT 7.10.1999 ISSUED BY THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT REGARDINGTHE RANKS AWARDED FOR M.SC (ZOOLOGY) EXAMINATION FOR 1996.

¶42

EXT.P13(a): TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.PGVII/2/4588/05 DT 16.5.2006 ISSUED BY THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS OF 1ST RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY.

¶43

EXT.P13(b): TRUE COPY OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE NO.GAII/F1/1035/06 DT 1.6.2006 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶44

EXT.P14: TREU COPY OF THE EDITORIAL SHEET OF NOVEMBER 2004 ISSUE OF “MILLENNIUM ZOOLOGY”.

¶45

EXT.P14(a): TRUE COPY OF SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION OF “SCIENCE INDIA”.

¶46

EXT.P14(b): TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT 17.2.2005 OF “ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF INDIA”.

WPC NO.4317/06

-3-

EXTS.OF R3

EXT.R3(a): PHOTOCOPY OF THE CIRRICULUM VITAE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶51

EXT.R3(b): PHOTOCOPY OF THE CERTIFICATE NO.B1-1227/98 DT 3.5.99 ISSUED BY THE PRINCIPAL, GOVT.COLLEGE, KASARAGOD TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶52

EXT.R3(c): PHOTOCOPY OF THE CERTIFICAT ENO.B1-1160/99 DT 3.12.99 ISSUED BY THE PRINCIPAL, GOVT.COLLEGE, KASARAGOD TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶53

EXT.R3(d): PHOTOCOPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OFMERIT DT 10.2.98 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT.

¶54

EXT.R3(e): PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPLY DT 12.6.06 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶55

//TRUE COPY//

¶56

P.A. TO JUDGE

¶57

ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ==============

¶58

W.P.(C) NO. 4317 OF 2006 (L)

¶59

====================

¶60

Dated this the 11^th day of December, 2008

¶61

J U D G M E N T

¶62

Petitioner was an applicant for the post of Lecturer in Zoology. Her claim was to the post earmarked for open and ETB category. Exts.P3 and P4 are the notifications. Although being a Guest Lecturer on contract basis appointed on the strength of Ext.P2 series of orders, petitioner claimed benefit of relaxation of age provided for internal candidates, petitioner's candidature was not considered on the ground that she was over aged. In the selection process, though the petitioner was also interviewed, ultimately respondents 3 and 4 got selected and were appointed. It is challenging their appointments that the writ petition is filed.

¶63

Now it is revealed that there were several complaints against various selections in the University including the one leading to the appointment of respondents 3 and 4 and that the Syndicate had appointed a Sub Committee to go into those allegations. The Syndicate Sub Committee submitted a report, which is pending consideration of the University and on account of the pendency of various writ petitions, the University has not taken any final decision in this matter.

¶64

At the same time, respondent 3 submits that he has already

¶65

WPC 4317/06

¶66

:2 :

¶67

approached the Chancellor of the University invoking his powers under Section 7(3) of the Calicut University Act, aggrieved by the findings in the enquiry report. Therefore, anything that is done in pursuance to the enquiry report shall be subject to the outcome of the proceedings, if any, pending before the Chancellor.

¶68

Now that the enquiry report with findings adverse to respondents 3 and 4 is pending before the University, it is primarily for the University to take further action in this matter. But, however any such action will be only with notice to respondents 3 and 4 and after affording an opportunity to make their representations in this matter. It is informed that the 3^rd respondent has already been given notice. But, he has not been heard so far. Therefore, the University shall issue notice to respondents 3 and 4 disclosing the materials that is sought to be used against them and afford an opportunity of hearing to them and thereafter hear them, and take a decision in this matter. It is directed that in the event, the ultimate decision taken by the University is prejudicial to respondents 3 and 4, the same will be kept in abeyance for a period of 7 days. The contentions raised on the merits are left open.

¶69

Now what remains is the grievance of the petitioner regarding

¶70

WPC 4317/06

¶71

:3 :

¶72

the action of the University in declining the benefit of relaxation in age limit as provided in Exts. P3 and P4 notifications. The age limit prescribed in the notification is 40 years as on 1/1/2005. It is however provided that relaxation in age limit will be granted in the case of internal candidates otherwise deserving including those who are working in the University Projects and drawing salary from the University Fund as per resolution of the Syndicate dated 16/2/85. Ext.P2 series are the documents relied on by the petitioner to contend that she is an internal candidate eligible for the benefit of age relaxation. Ext.P2 series show that the petitioner has been working in the University as Guest Lecturer since 2001. Going by the provision for relaxation in age limit provided in Exts. P3 and P4, it is obvious that even those who are working in the University projects are made eligible for the said benefit. It being an inclusive enabling provision, the stand of the University in its counter affidavit that those who are working in regular service and regular pay scale of the University alone are treated as internal candidates is erroneous. If those working in the University projects can be given the benefit of age relaxation, I wonder why such benefit should not be effected to a person like the petitioner who has been working in the University since 2001.

¶73

WPC 4317/06

¶74

:4 :

¶75

In my view, the petitioner is eligible for the benefit of age relaxation provided in Exts. P3 and P4. If that be so, the refusal of the University in considering her case as an over aged candidate cannot be upheld. Therefore, I direct that in the event, there arises an occasion for the University to reconsider the candidature of those who are responded to

¶76

Exts. P3 and P4, the claim of the petitioner also will be considered on merits.

¶77

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶78

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶79

Dr.P.R.Jayasree v. University of Calicut.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.P.R.Jayasree v. University of Calicut.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Corporation of Kollam Vs H.Mohammed Subair

Sree Maruthi Vidyalaya H.S.S,Neyyattink Vs State & 3

Rajeev U. Vs State of Kerala

Dr.S.M.Pillai Vs Mini Antony

N.G.Biju Vs Smt.E.K.Sujatha

Suseelan Nair Vs State of Kerala