Dismissed

State of Kerala v. N.K.Babu

Kerala HC19 Dec 2016WP(C)/34117/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court examined a writ petition by the State challenging the approval of a lecturer's appointment at MES Asmabi College on grounds of insufficient vacancies. The Court held that the University's reiteration of approval, considering workload and objections, was binding on the Government under the principle established in Cheriyan Mathew. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed without costs, giving effect to the University's binding reiteration of the appointment order.

State of Kerala Vs N.K.Babu — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/28TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 34117 of 2010 (L)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶8

2. DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, THRISSUR.

¶10

BY SRI.C.K.PRASAD, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

1. N.K.BABU, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.V.RAMANKUTTY NAIR, CHITHRALAYAM, VEERAMANGALAM P.O., OTTAPPALAM, PALAKKAD, DISTRICT-679 101.

¶13

2. UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR, CALICUT UNIVERSITY, THENHIPALAM P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-673 636.

¶14

3. MUSLIM EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL SECRETARY, DR.P.K.FAZAL GAFOOR, BANK ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673 001.

¶15

4. THE PRINCIPAL, MES ASMABI COLLEGE,

¶16

VEMBALLUR P.O., KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 664.

¶17

R3 BY ADVS. SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH

¶18

SRI.JAGAN GEORGE SRI.K.A.NOUSHAD

¶19

SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU SRI.P.G.PRAMOD

¶20

R1 BY ADV. SRI.V.RAJENDRAN

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19-12-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

¶23

WP(C).No. 34117 of 2010 (L)

¶24

APPENDIX

¶25

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶26

EXT.P1:	COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE SELECTION COMMITTEE.
EXT.P2:	COPY OF THE ORDER OF APPOINTMENT ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXT.P3:	COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY GRANTING APPROVAL.
EXT.P4:	COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF WORKLOAD OF MES ASMABI COLLEGE, VEMBALLUR.
EXT.P5:	COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF WORKLOAD OF MES KALLADI COLLEGE, MANNARAKAD.
EXT.P6:	COPY OF THE LETTER NO.B3/1106/07, DATED 16.3.2007 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, THRISSUR TO PRINCIPAL, MES COLLEGE.
EXT.P7:	COPY OF G.O.MS.NO.17/96/H.EDN.DATED 27.01.1996.
EXT.P8:	COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 29.08.2009 OF THE DEPUTY DIRECOTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, THRISSUR TO CALICUT UNIVERSITY.
EXT.P9:	COPY OF THE LETTER NO.GAII/A3/2669/2005, DATED 27.10.2009 FROM THE REGISTRAR, CALICUT UNIVERSITY TO THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, THRISSUR.
EXT.P10:	COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.C.NO.35957/2008 DATED 26.11.2009.
EXT.P11:	COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER TO STAY IN W.P.C.NO.20966/2010.

¶27

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

NIL

TRUE COPY

P.A TO JUDGE

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.

¶32

¶33

W.P.C.No.34117 of 2010

¶34

Dated this the 19^th day of December, 2016

¶35

J U D G M E N T

¶36

The State of Kerala has filed this writ petition impugning Exts.P3 and P9 orders as per which the appointment of the 1^st respondent Sri.N.K.Babu was approved by the respondent University as Lecturer in Commerce in MES Asmabi College, Kodungallur with effect from 22.03.2005 against a retirement vacancy. The Government have impugned these orders on the ground that the appointment of Mr.Babu was irregular since there was not enough vacancies to accommodate him at the time when he was appointed.

¶37

I have heard the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the State and the learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 4.

¶38

I see from Ext.P3 order of the University that it had initially approved the appointment of the 1^st respondent as Lecturer in Commerce in the college with effect from 22.05.2005 in a retirement vacancy. It appears that the State objected to this on the ground that there were not enough vacancies in the

¶39

W.P.C.No.34117 of 2010

¶40

¶41

college to accommodate the 1^st respondent. However, the University, after considering all the objections raised by the Educational Authority of the Government reiterated the appointment as per Ext.P9. It is specifically stated by the University in Ext.P9 that the appointment of the 1^st respondent as Lecturer in Commerce was against a retirement vacancy considering the work load in the Commerce Department of that college. It is also specifically mentioned in the order that there was work load of 131 hours in the Department of Commerce excluding five hours for Law and that with this work load eight Lecturers should have been accommodated, against which only seven were working. It is also recorded therein that they have obtained a certificate from the management that there were no supernumerary hands working in any of the colleges under the corporate management. Therefore, Ext.P9 goes to say that the appointment of 1^st respondent was approved by the University based on cogent reasons.

¶42

It is now settled by the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Cheriyan Mathew v. Principal, S.B College, Changanacherry [1998(2) KLT 144] that in case the

¶43

W.P.C.No.34117 of 2010

¶44

¶45

Director of Collegiate Education doubts the propriety of appointment of a teacher, in the sense that the work load did not require the appointment of such a teacher, the issue will have to be taken up with the University. The University then has to examine the objections and to take a decision as to whether the appointment was proper or not. When the University thereafter takes a decision on this aspect, such decision will be binding on the Government.

¶46

The law being settled by the Honourable Supreme Court as above and taking into account the fact that Ext.P9 is a reiteration of the approval of the 1^st respondent by the University on reference made by the Director of Collegiate Education, the same would then become binding on the Government and the Government would have no other option but to approve the appointment of the incumbent. Additionally, it is also brought to my notice by the learned counsel for respondents 3 to 5 that consequent to order of staff re-fixation, the work load of the Department has actually become 136 + 75 hours which can accommodate a minimum of 13 Lecturers. Of course, this is an assertion that has to be verified by the Department. I, therefore,

¶47

W.P.C.No.34117 of 2010

¶48

¶49

do not propose to consider this submission for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition.

¶50

In view of the binding procedure established in Cheriyan Mathew (supra), I am of the view that this Court has

¶51

no other option but to conclude that the reiteration of the University contained in Ext.P9, with reference to the appointment of the 1^st respondent, would be binding on the Government and that therefore, they would have no other option but to accept it.

¶52

In such circumstances, noticing the binding proceedings, I dismiss this writ petition but without costs.

¶53

Sd/-

¶54

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

¶55

TRUE COPY

¶56

P.A TO JUDGE

¶57

State of Kerala v. N.K.Babu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Kerala v. N.K.Babu

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

Jijo Joseph Vs State of Kerala

T.R.Jayagopal Vs Institute of Human Resources Development

Gopakumar.T Vs State of Kerala and Others

Lijiya.M Vs Director, Kerala State Open School

Suseel.S Vs Kerala State Electricity Board

Dr.Clement Lopez Vs State of Kerala