Disposed

The Principal v. the Calicut University Appellate Tribuna

Kerala HC18 May 2012WP(C)/25267/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Disposing writ petitions challenging an appellate tribunal order that set aside a lecturer's appointment, the High Court directed the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education to pay salary dues to the petitioner for his period of service from August 2004 to June 2006.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education, Kozhikode to disburse salary due to the petitioner in W.P.(C). No.26243/2005 for the period from 02/08/2004 to 16/06/2006 less two months alre

The Principal Vs the Calicut University… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 26TH JUNE 2009 / 5TH ASHADHA 1931

¶5

WP(C).No. 25267 of 2005(G)

¶6

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

¶7

PETITIONERS:

¶8

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

¶9

1. THE PRINCIPAL, FAROOK COLLEGE, FAROOK, CALICUT.

¶10

2. THE FAROOK COLLEGE MANAGEMENT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, FAROOK COLLEGE, CALICUT.

¶11

BY MR.K.R.B.KAIMAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADV. MR.B.UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL.

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

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

¶14

1. THE CALICUT UNIVERSITY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

2. DR.ASHITA RAVEENDRAN, D/O.G.RAVEENDRAN, "DHISHEEJA", P.O.PALLIKKAL, MALAPPURAM-673 653.

¶16

3. THE CALICUT UNIVERSITY, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O.-673 635, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.

¶17

4. THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶18

5. THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶19

6. SRI.NOUFAL, LECTURER IN ECONOMICS, FAROOK COLLEGE, FAROOK COLLEGE P.O., CALICUT.

¶20

R4 & R5 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR. K. RAMESH, R1 & R3 BY MR.E.S.ASHRAF, SC, MR.S.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR, SC, R6 BY ADV. MR.A.A.ABUL HASSAN.

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/06/2009, ALONG WITH W.P.(C). NO. 26243 OF 2005,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

W.P.(C). NO.25267/2005-G:

¶23

APPENDIX

¶24

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶25

EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE APPEAL NO.13 OF 2004 FILED BY THE R.2. BEFORE THE R.1. DT. 20/09/04.

¶26

EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS HEREIN, IN APPEAL NO. 13 OF 2004 BEFORE THE R.1. DTD. 06/02/2005.

¶27

EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE ANSWER FILED BY THE R.3. IN APPEAL NO. 13 OF 2004 BEFORE THE R.1. DTD. 06/05/2005.

¶28

EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE R.1. IN APPEAL NO. 13 OF 2004 DTD. 30/07/2005.

¶29

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE.

Prv.

T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.

¶34

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

¶35

W.P.(C). Nos.25267/2005-G and 26243/2005-Y

¶36

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 26^th day of June, 2009

¶37

J U D G M E N T

¶38

W.P.(C).No.26243/2005 is filed by a Lecturer concerned and W.P.(C).No.25267/2005 is filed by the Principal and the Management. Both the writ petitions challenge the judgment rendered by the Calicut University Appellate Tribunal, which is produced as Ext.P10 in W.P.(C). No.26243/2005.

¶39

The petitioner in W.P.(C).No.26243/2005 was appointed as Lecturer as per Ext.P4 with effect from 02/08/2004. The said appointment has been approved, as per Ext.P9, by the University. The first respondent was a rival claimant who approached the Tribunal against the appointment granted to the petitioner. The Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, allowed the appeal and the appointment of the petitioner was set aside. The first respondent herein was directed to be appointed in the place of the petitioner. While admitting the writ petition, this Court granted an interim stay of operation and enforcement of Ext.P10, as per order dated 05/09/2005. Even though notice has been served on the first respondent she has not entered appearance. The interim order is in force even now.

¶40

W.P.(C). Nos.25267/2005 and 26243/2005

¶41

-:2:-

¶42

It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, relying on the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.7141/2009 that the petitioner has left the service of the University after obtaining a regular appointment, which is evidenced by Ext.P11 order relieving him from service and now, he is working as a Lecturer in Economics in a Government College. As far as the first respondent is concerned, it is pointed out in the affidavit that the first respondent has got appointment as Lecturer in N.C.E.R.T at New Delhi and she has settled there. She is therefore, no longer interested in getting appointment as Lecturer in Farook College. What remains is the claim of the petitioner for salary from 02/08/2004 to 16/06/2006. Since the petitioner continued to function as Lecturer in the light of the interim order passed by this Court, the claim for payment of salary will have to be sanctioned accordingly by the authority concerned.

¶43

Therefore, there will be a direction to the additional eighth respondent, Deputy Director of Collegiate Education, Kozhikode who is impleaded as such in I.A.No.7141/2009, to take steps to disburse the salary due to the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.26243/2005 for the period during which he was in service, i.e. From 02/08/2004 to 16/06/2006 except for two

¶44

W.P.(C). Nos.25267/2005 and 26243/2005

¶45

-:3:-

¶46

months already disbursed. Appropriate action will be taken within two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment.

¶47

The writ petitions are disposed of as above. No costs.

¶48

(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)

¶49

The Principal v. the Calicut University Appellate Tribuna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Principal v. the Calicut University Appellate Tribuna

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

Rajesh K.Raju Vs the State of Kerala

Sreekala.M. Vs Sri.T.P.Abdul Majeed

V.Indulekha Vs P.Sivasankar

Pramod Kumar V.P. Vs District Officer, Kpsc

Sajeev Kumar.S. Vs Government of Kerala & Others

C.T.Devassy Vs Pension Board