Dismissed

Dr. v.Wilsanand v. the Corporate Manager

Kerala HC6 Sept 2016WP(C)/19156/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court held that a teacher aggrieved by an intra-university transfer must avail the statutory appeal remedy under Calicut University Statutes (Statute 72A clause 12) rather than filing a writ petition. The writ petition stands dismissed, and directions were issued to approach the Vice-Chancellor with an appeal within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to seek redressal through statutory appeal before the Vice-Chancellor within three weeks; interim stay continued until final appeal decision.

Dr. v.Wilsanand Vs the Corporate Manager — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/15TH BHADRA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 19156 of 2016 (T)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

DR.WILSANAND,

¶8

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF ZOOLOGY, S.N. COLLEGE, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD-678 682.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J., SRI.T.G.SUNIL (PRANAVAM), SRI.K.R.GANESH.

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. THE CORPORATE MANAGER,

¶12

S.N. COLLEGES, SREE NARAYANA TRUST, KOLLAM-691 001.

¶13

2. THE PRINCIPAL, S.N. COLLEGE, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD-678 682.

¶14

ADDL. R3 IMPLEADED

¶15

3. UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-673 635.

¶16

ADDL. R3 IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 05/09/2016.

¶17

R1 BY ADVS. SRI.A.N.RAJAN BABU,

¶18

SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNAN (MVA), SRI.A.R.EASWAR LAL.

¶19

ADDL. R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC.

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

rs.

¶22

WP(C).No. 19156 of 2016 (T)

¶23

APPENDIX

¶24

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶25

P1 TRUE COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER DT. 22-11-2004 OF THE PETITIONER.

¶26

P2 TRUE COPY OF APPROVAL ORDER DT. 10-08-2010.

¶27

P3 TRUE COPY OF PRE-COMMISSION CERTIFICATE DT. 10-10-2009 ISSUED BY NCC OFFICERS TRAINING ACADEMY 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶28

P4 TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DT. 01-03-2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE COMMANDING OFFICER, NCC, PALAKKAD.

¶29

P5 TRUE COPY OF COURSE CERTIFICATE DT. 28-04-2015 ISSUED BY NCC OFFICERS TRAINING ACADEMY.

¶30

P6 TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR DT. 07-06-2000 ISSUED BY GOVT. OF KERALA.

¶31

P7 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT. 31-05-2016 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶32

P8 TRUE COPY OF OPTION FORM DT. 19-02-2016 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.

¶33

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

rs.

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

W.P(C).No.19156 Of 2016

¶39

Dated this the 6th day of September, 2016.

¶40

J U D G M E N T

¶41

The grievance of the writ petitioner is directed against Ext.P-7 order dated 31.5.2016 issued by the 1^st respondent corporate Manager of S.N Colleges, whereby the petitioner has been ordered to be transferred from S.N College, Alathur to S.N.Guru College, Chelannur. It is averred that the petitioner is working as Associate Professor in Zoology Department in the 2^nd respondent S.N College, Alathur, and further that he has also been discharging the duty of Associate NCC Officer in the NCC Wing of the 2^nd respondent S.N.College, Alathur. That the petitioner has taken charge as NCC Officer on 14.10.2009 and as per Ext.P-6 circular dated 7.6.2000 issued by the Government of Kerala, it has been stipulated therein that Associate NCC Officer shall not be transferred for a period of 10 years from the date of taking charge as NCC Officer in a particular station. Therefore, it is argued by the petitioner that he is entitled to continue in the 2^nd respondent S.N.College till 14.10.2019. On a perusal of Ext.P-6 Government

¶42

::2::

¶43

W.P(C).No.19156 Of 2016

¶44

Circular dated 7.6.2000 discloses that the State Government has stipulated therein that the said instructions are applicable to NCC Officers of all Corporate Management Colleges/Schools within the State. The second contention of the petitioner is that he is working as Associate Professor and that in the proposed College to which he is transferred, viz., S.N.Guru College, Chelannur, there is no B.Sc. Degree Course with Zoology as the main subject and that Zoology is only a subsidiary subject to B.Sc. Degree Course with Botany as main subject whereas the 2nd respondent S.N.College, has got a B.Sc. Degree with Zoology as main subject. Consequently, it is argued by the petitioner that the work to be handled at S.N. Guru College, Chelannur for teaching Zoology, which is only a subsidiary subject is to be ordinarily done by a teacher in the rank of Assistant Professor and that teaching experience of Associate Professors is to be utilised in a College where there is a course with main subject in which the teacher is qualified, etc. It is also contended that petitioner's father is aged 75, who is an exservice man, and who has undergone brain surgery and there is none to take care of him if the petitioner is transferred out as per the impugned order, etc. It is also averred that no person has been posted in

¶45

::3::

¶46

W.P(C).No.19156 Of 2016

¶47

replacement of the petitioner as per Ext.P-7 transfer order. It is in the light of these aspects, that the writ petitioner has filed the instant Writ Petition with the following prayers:

¶48

“(i) To issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records leading to Ext.P-7transfer order and quash the same to the extent it relates to the petitioner, who has been ordered to be transferred from S.N.College, Alathur to S.N.Guru College, Chelannur;

¶49

(ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing respondents 1 and 2 to permit the petitioner to continue in service as Associate Professor in the Department of Zoology in S.N. College, Alathur.

¶50

(iii) to declare that the petitioner is entitled to continue in service in S.N.College, Alathur in the light of Ext.P-6 circular;

¶51

(iv) to grant such other and further reliefs as are just, proper and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶52

This Court while admitting the Writ Petition had passed

¶53

interim order staying operation of impugned Ext.P-7 transfer order to the extent it affects the petitioner and the said interim order has been extended from time to time.

¶54

Heard Sri.P.J.Elvin Peter, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.A.N.Rajan Babu, learned Standing Counsel for the S.N.Colleges, appearing for respondents 1 & 2 and Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, learned Standing Counsel for the Calicut University appearing for additional 3rd respondent.

¶55

The matter relating to transfer of teachers working in

¶56

Colleges which are affiliated within the same University is regulated by

¶57

::4::

¶58

W.P(C).No.19156 Of 2016

¶59

Chapter IVA of the Calicut University 1st Statute which deal with the intra University transfer of teachers under management having Colleges affiliated to the University of Calicut. Various norms in the matters of such transfer are dealt with therein and clause (12) of Statute 72A thereof provides that appeals against transfers made in violation of this amendment statute shall be made to the Vice-Chancellor by the teacher aggrieved within a period of three months from the date of issue of the transfer order and the Vice-Chancellor shall dispose of the appeal within the time stipulated therein, etc.

¶60

In the light of this aspect, it is ordered that it is for the petitioner to seek redressal of his grievance by taking recourse to the statutory appeal remedy conferred as per clause (12) of Statute 72A of the said Calicut University Statutes relating to intra University transfer of teachers. Though a time limit of three months of the date of transfer order is stipulated in the said statutory provision, it is seen that the impugned Ext.P-7 order was issued on 31.5.2016 and the petitioner had filed the instant Writ Petition on 2.6.2016 itself and the interim stay order was passed by this Court on 3.6.2016. Therefore, it is only to be held that the period from 2.6.2016 (date of institution of this Writ

¶61

::5::

¶62

W.P(C).No.19156 Of 2016

¶63

Petition) up to the period of 3 weeks from the date of issue of certified copy of this judgment shall be excluded while calculating the statutory period of limitation. The petitioner will ensure that appeal is preferred before the 3rd respondent Vice Chancellor without much delay, at any rate, within a period of 3 weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, delineating his various submissions and contention for redressal of his grievance and a copy of of such appeal memorandum should be served in advance to the 3rd respondent by speed post. It is for the 3rd respondent to file their written objections in the matter and a copy thereof should be served to the petitioner in advance so as to enable the petitioner to submit his reply to such written objections, etc. Further on completion of such pleadings in this regard, the 1st respondent will afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and the 1st respondent corporate manager and will render a decision without much delay, at any rate, within a period of 6 weeks from the date on which personal hearing is conducted. It is made clear that the 1st respondent will take into account all contentions and submissions that may be made by the petitioner and the 1st respondent and will render a considered resolution of the disputes between the

¶64

::6::

¶65

W.P(C).No.19156 Of 2016

¶66

parties in a fair and just manner. The proceedings of the decision so taken by the 1st respondent shall be communicated to the petitioner and

¶67

1st respondent by speed post. Until a decision is so taken by the 1st respondent as directed above, the petitioner shall be allowed to continue

¶68

in 2nd respondent S.N.College, Alathur.

¶69

With these observations and directions, this Writ Petition (Civil) stands finally disposed of.

ALEXANDER THOMAS,

Judge.

Bkn/-

The following corrections are carried out in the judgment dated 06-09-2016 in W.P(C).No.19156/2016, vide order dated 03-10-2016 in I.A.No.15220/2016 in W.P.(C)No.19156/2016:

¶74

The words “3^rd respondent” occurring in the 8^th and 9^th lines of paragraph 5 at page 5 of the judgment are corrected and substituted as “1^st respondent” ;

¶75

The words “1^st respondent” occurring in the 13^th and 17^th lines of paragraph 5 at page 5 of the judgment are corrected and substituted as “3^rd respondent” ;

¶76

The words “1^st respondent” occurring in the 2^nd line of paragraph 5 at page 6 and in the last sentence of paragraph 5 at page 6 of the judgment are corrected and substituted as “3rd respondent”.

¶77

Registrar (Judicial)

¶78

sd/-

Dr. v.Wilsanand v. the Corporate Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. v.Wilsanand v. the Corporate Manager

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

Siji Paily Vs K.T. Balabhaskaran

Neethu A.T. Vs University of Calicut

P.Muthuswamy Vs Union of India

Sathish Babu P.T. Vs the Kerala State Financial Enterpirses Ltd.

Satheesh R Vs Kerala Water Authority

Linimol K.K Vs Kerala Water Authority