In a writ petition challenging the nomination of a merchant as an industry expert to a University Syndicate, the Court upheld the Chancellor's selection based on approved file materials and held the Court could not interfere with the administrative choice of experts.
The writ petition was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI
MONDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2014/28TH ASWINA, 1936
WP(C).No. 7887 of 2013 (I) ---------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
DR.AJITH KUMAR, AGED 46 YEARS ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICALENGINEERING COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY KOCHI - 22.
BY ADVS.SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR SRI.G.BIJU SRI.AJITH MURALI SRI.S.JAYAPRAKASH (MADAVOOR)
SRI.V.A.VINOD
RESPONDENT(S):
1. THE CHANCELLOR COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CHANCELLOR'S SECRETARIAT, KERALA RAJ BHAVAN THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
2. COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, KALAMASSERY ERNAKULAM - 682 022.
3. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
4. SUNNY P.JOSE, ALAPPATT PALATHINGAL VEEDU, T.C. NO.1415(1), NANDANKODU KARA, CLIFF HOUSE ROAD, KOWDIAR THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 023.
R1-R2 BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI, SC, COCHIN UNIVERSITY R3 BY SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI, ADVOCATE GENERAL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD AND RESERVED ON 19.06.2014, THE COURT ON 20.10.2014 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
bka/-
WP(C).No. 7887 of 2013 (I)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
| EXT.P1 | TRUE COPY OF THE BIO-DATA SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT |
|---|---|
| EXT.P2 | TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 16 OF KERALA VALUE ADDED TAX ACT, 2003. |
| EXT.P3 | TRUE COPY OF THE NOTE GIVEN BY THE MINISTER TO 3RD RESPONDENT OBTAINED UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT. |
| EXT.P4 | TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 4.6.2011 SENT BY 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE NOMINATION OF 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE SYNDICATE OF 2ND RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY. |
| EXT.P5 | TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.17617/B2/2011/H.EDN DT.9.6.2011 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT. |
| EXT.P6 | TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 10.6.2011 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT FORWARDING EXHIBIT-P5 TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT. |
| EXT.P7 | TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 13.6.2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY. |
| EXT.P8 | TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM REPORTED IN MANGALAM DAILY PUBLISHED ON 12.6.2011. |
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL
//TRUE COPY//
PA TO JUDGE
bka/-
A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J.
W.P.(C) No. 7887 of 2013
Dated this the 20th day of October, 2014
J U D G M E N T
Ext.P5 order, by which the 3rd respondent has nominated the 4th respondent as member to the Syndicate of the 2nd respondent University, as well as Ext.P7 notification made by the 2nd respondent University on the basis of Ext.P5 are challenged by the petitioner, who is an Associate Professor in the Department of Mechanical Engineering in the 2nd respondent University.
..2..
W.P.(C) No. 7887 of 2013
make nomination to the Syndicate under the provisions referred to above. It is alleged that the 1st respondent, who is the Chancellor, has not so far made any nomination exercising the aforesaid power under the Act. Therefore, he alleges that Ext.P7 notification made by the 2nd respondent University on the basis of Ext.P5 is per se illegal and unsustainable. The petitioner further alleges that the 4th respondent is not an expert in the field of Industry or Commerce and he is only a merchant in textile and jewellery and he was nominated only on political influence and pressure. It was pointed out that the inclusion of academic and other experts in the constitution of Senate is with the object of securing their contribution in the field of higher education and research. The aforesaid object of the University would be defeated if persons not having expertise or those who have not made contributions to the concerned field, are nominated to the Syndicate; it is alleged. It is with this background, the petitioner has come up before this Court.
W.P.(C) No. 7887 of 2013
..3..
respondent, it is contended that by virtue of file No.17617/B2/2013/H.Edn., the State Government had submitted the bio-data of the 4th respondent for consideration for nomination to the Syndicate of Cochin University of Science and Technology by the Chancellor. The Chancellor has approved the inclusion of the 4th respondent on 09.06.2011; and thus, the Chancellor has nominated the 4th respondent to be included in the Syndicate under Section 17(1)(vii) of the Act as an expert from the field of Industry and Commerce; it is contended. According to the 1st respondent, there is no provision in the Act necessitating the Chancellor to issue a formal order to give effect the nomination and as and when the Chancellor approves a person from the materials placed before him, it shall amount to a valid nomination for the purpose of Section 17(1)(vii) of the Act. The argument of the petitioner that the 4th respondent's nomination is by the 3rd respondent is not true and correct as the 3rd
W.P.(C) No. 7887 of 2013
..4..
respondent has only circulated the name of the 4th respondent for the purpose of recommendation and nomination by the Chancellor. By virtue of the approval of that name on 09.06.2011 by the Chancellor, the 4th respondent was validly nominated by the Chancellor; it is contended. Therefore, according to the 1st respondent, nomination of the 4th respondent to the Syndicate of the 2nd respondent University is in accordance with the mandate contained in Section 17(1)(vii) of the Act and it is valid. Therefore, they prayed for a dismissal of the writ petition.
W.P.(C) No. 7887 of 2013
..5..
Science and Technology by the 1st respondent as an expert from the field of Industry and Commerce as per Section 17(1)(vii) of the Act. According to them, the terms of the 4th respondent's office were subject to the provisions of the Act and Statutes thereunder as amended from time to time with effect from 09.06.2011, i.e., with effect from the date of nomination. According to the University, it is clear from Ext.P5 that the assent was obtained from the Chancellor. It is also stated that pursuant to the issuance of Ext.P7, the 4th respondent is continuing as Syndicate member. They have pointed out that the 4th respondent had preferred a complaint before the Kalamassery Police Station, alleging that the petitioner had circulated a false and fabricated story thereby defaming the 4th respondent. FIR was lodged and Crime No.176/2012 was registered under Section 66A(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, which is pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Aluva. They have also pointed out that the 4th respondent
W.P.(C) No. 7887 of 2013
..6..
has alleged that the petitioner had forwarded news items to several persons including University employees via e-mail to defame the 4th respondent. It is further pointed out that against the registration of crime, the petitioner has preferred Crl.M.C.No.1499/2012 before this Court, which is still pending. The petitioner also preferred WP (C) No.29032/2012 alleging that the 4th respondent misused the position of Syndicate Member and has engaged a private lawyer at the expense of the respondent University. The order issued by the University was also challenged therein, which was closed by this Court observing that the apprehension of the petitioner and the challenge against Ext.P5 was not liable to be entertained as the respondent University has not sanctioned or paid any amount as fees payable in respect of Crl.M.C. No.1499/2012. The respondent University has taken the stand that the writ petition is filed with mala fide intention and with the intention to tarnish the respondent University as well as the 4th respondent.
W.P.(C) No. 7887 of 2013
..7..
..8..
W.P.(C) No. 7887 of 2013
Standing Counsel for the respondent University.
..9..
W.P.(C) No. 7887 of 2013
vengeance on the 4th respondent having preferred police complaint against the petitioner.
..10..
W.P.(C) No. 7887 of 2013
appointed on the nomination of the Governor. It is pointed out that the University Act does not contain any specific procedure for nomination. It is left with the discretion of the Chancellor to collect information for the purpose of making nomination. In order to enable the Chancellor to complete the process of nomination, the Chancellor is free to look into any material available to him and he can nominate any person, who is having required qualification, from any material placed before him. The safest material to be relied on would be names proposed or circulated by the available sources; it was argued.
..11..
W.P.(C) No. 7887 of 2013
commerce. There is no provision in the Act necessitating the Chancellor to issue a formal order to effect nomination.
..12..
W.P.(C) No. 7887 of 2013
is in accordance with the mandate contained in Section 17(1)(vii) of the Cochin University of Science and Technology Act, 1986. What is intended by the Act is to include persons with expertise and knowledge from the diverse cross-section of the society so that the collective wisdom of such experts would guide the University to achieve its objectives.
Therefore, the writ petition fails; and accordingly, it is dismissed.
Sd/- A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JUDGE
bka/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a valid nomination to the University Syndicate requires a formal order by the Chancellor or is satisfied by approvement in file materials.
Whether the Chancellor's decision selecting a Syndicate member can be second-guessed by the Court.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Dr. Ajith Kumar
The Chancellor Cochin University of Science and Technology
Cochin University of Science and Technology
The Principal Secretary to Government
Sunny P. Jose
A.V. Ramakrishna Pillai
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
