Disposed

Dr.M.Sivaswami v. Kerala Agricultural University

Kerala HC10 Dec 2012WP(C)/26799/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court granted relief to two petitioners aggrieved by show-cause notices issued by the respondent University proposing to annul their appointments. The Court directed the University to consider replies, hear the petitioners, and pass final orders, staying any detrimental decision for one week. The writ petitions were disposed of accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Respondent University directed to consider replies, give opportunity of hearing, pass final orders, and not implement any detrimental decision for one week.

Dr.M.Sivaswami Vs Kerala Agricultural University — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

MONDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/19TH AGRAHAYANA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 26799 of 2012 (Y)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

DR.M.SIVASWAMI, 56 YEARS S/O.MUTHUSWAMY GOUNDAR KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY QUARTERS, TAVANNUR MALAPPURAM.

¶8

[DEAN, FACULTY OF AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING]

¶9

BY SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.RENJITH THAMPAN BY ADVS. SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR

¶10

SMT.P.R.REENA SRI.M.V.ANANDAN

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

1. KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY VELLANIKKARA, THRISSUR DIST., PIN-680 654 REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.

¶13

2. VICE CHANCELLOR

¶14

KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, VELLANIKKARA

¶15

THRISSUR DIST., PIN-680 654.

¶16

3. REGISTRAR

¶17

KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, VELLANIKKARA

¶18

THRISSUR DIST., PIN-680 654.

¶19

R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA, SC

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-12-2012, ALONG WITH WPC. 26869/2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

¶22

...2/-

¶23

WP(C).No. 26799 of 2012 (Y)

¶24

APPENDIX

¶25

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS :

¶26

EXT.P1-	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION OF THE AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY DATED 02.07.2008.
EXT.P2-	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 21.6.2010 OF THE KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY.
EXT.P3-	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE UNIVERSITY NO.GA/C1/24818/10 DATED 3.7.2010.
EXT.P4-	TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT AGENDA NOTE OF THE GENERAL COUNCIL MEETING.
EXT.P5-	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 25.10.2012 OF THE KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY TO THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P6-	TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SENT BY THE PETITIONER DATED 06.11.2012 TO THE REGISTRAR OF IST RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY.

¶27

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶32

¶33

W.P.(c) Nos.26799 & 26869 OF 2012

¶34

- - - - Dated this the 10^th day of December , 2012

¶35

JUDGMENT

¶36

The petitioners, who are working as Dean of Faculty of Agricultural Engineering and Director of Extension respectively in the respondent University are before this Court, being aggrieved of the show-cause notices issued by the University proposing to annul the appointment given to the petitioners about two years back.

¶37

The petitioners, pursuant to Ext.P1 notification, applied for the posts in question and after considering their credentials, they came to be appointed by the University as per Ext.P3 and P2 orders respectively to the concerned posts and are continuing as above. It was rather as a matter of revelation, that the University thought it to proceed against the petitioners by causing their appointment to be annulled and issued Ext.P5 notice in W.P.(C)No.26799/2012 and Ext.P4 notice in W.P.(C)No.26869/2012, in similar terms. On receipt of the above notices, the petitioners have preferred Exts.P6 and P5 respectively,

¶38

W.P.(C)No.26799 & 26869 of 2012

¶39

¶40

pointing out that there is absolutely no factual or legal basis for proceeding with the notices.

¶41

Sri.Ranjith Thampan, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that, no decision has been taken by the 'General Council' in these cases and as such, the proceedings are per se wrong and illegal in all respects. That apart, the appointments given to the petitioners about two years back are not liable to be reviewed even by the General Council, submits the learned Senior Counsel.

¶42

The learned Standing Counsel for the University submits

¶43

that, the facts and circumstances which led to the issuance of

¶44

show-cause notices are clearly stated in the said notices and admittedly, the petitioners have submitted their reply as well. The learned counsel submits that, appropriate decision will be taken only after going through the entire facts and figurers, considering the version of the petitioners and also after giving an opportunity of hearing to them. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that, in similar circumstance, the issue has been considered by this Court as involved in W.P.(C) No.17966/2012, which was disposed of as per judgment dated

¶45

W.P.(C)No.26799 & 26869 of 2012

¶46

¶47

5.12.2012, directing the University to finalise the matter, simultaneously ordering that the decision, if detrimental to the rights and interests of the petitioners shall be kept in abeyance for a period of

¶48

'one week' from the date of communication. This Court does not find any reason to deviate from the said course.

¶49

The respondent University is directed to consider the reply submitted by the petitioners in response to the show cause notices and pass final orders in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to both the petitioners at the earliest. It is also made clear that, if for any reason, the decision to be taken by the University goes against the petitioners, it shall not be implemented for a period of 'one week' from the date of communication.

¶50

Both the writ petitions are disposed of accordingly.

¶51

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶52

JUDGE

¶53

sv.

¶54

W.P.(C)No.26799 & 26869 of 2012

¶55

¶56

W.P.(C)No.26799 & 26869 of 2012

¶57

Dr.M.Sivaswami v. Kerala Agricultural University

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.M.Sivaswami v. Kerala Agricultural University

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shahina Vs State Ofkerala and 3 Others

S.Ramachandran Nair Vs State of Kerala

Fasalul Haque Vs State of Kerala

Y.Vijayan Vs State of Kerala

T.C.Jose Vs Kerala State Electricity Board

Abey Daniel Vs Regional Deputy Director