Partly allowed

Mariya Rincy v. the Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department

Kerala HC11 Dec 2017WP(C)/35923/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, assistant professors, sought benefits and recognition of leave as duty. The University rejected requests forwarded by an interdicted Principal-in-charge. The High Court directed the University to consider the requests in accordance with law and UGC Regulations without insisting on re-forwarding, pending a hearing.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondent University to take up, consider and pass orders on the representations within one month after affording an opportunity of hearing, without insisting on re-forwarding the propos

Mariya Rincy Vs the Principal Secretary, Higher… — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017/20TH AGRAHAYANA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 35923 of 2017 (M) ----------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. MARIYA RINCY, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR IN ENGLISH, M.A COLLEGE, KOTHAMANGALAM.686691,ERNAKULAM.

¶8

2. SARATH B.S, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR IN MALAYALAM, M.A COLLEGE, KOTHAMANGALAM.686691,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶9

3. CHRISTIN SHAJI, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR IN ENGLISH, M.A COLLEGE, KOTHAMANGALAM-686691.ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶10

4. NEETHU P.N, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR IN COMMERCE, M.A COLLEGE, KOTHAMANGALAM.686691,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶11

5. DHANYA C.D, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR IN SOCIOLOGY, M.A COLLEGE, KOTHAMANGALAM.686691 ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶12

BY ADVS.SRI.ROY CHACKO SRI.ROMY CHACKO

¶13

RESPONDENT(S):

¶14

1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695001,

¶15

2. THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, 6TH FLOOR, VIKAS BHAVAN, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695003.

¶16

3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, NEAR MCRV MEN'S HOSTEL 11, HOSPITAL ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KERALA.682011.

¶17

4. THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, PREEYADHARSHINI BUILDING, ATHIRAMPUZHA PO, KOTTAYAM.686560.

¶18

WP(C).No. 35923 of 2017 (M)

¶19

5. THE DIRECTOR, COLLEGE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PREEYADHARSHINI BUILDING, ATHIRAMPUZHA PO, KOTTAYAM.686560.

¶20

6. THE UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION, SOUTH WESTERN REGIONAL OFFICE, P.K BLOCK, PALACE ROAD, GANDHI NAGAR, BANGALORE.560009.

¶21

R1 TO R3 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT NISHA BOSE R4,R5 BY ADV. SRI.ASOK M. CHERIAN, SC, R6 BY ADV. SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, CGC

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-12-2017, ALONG WITH WPC. 35969/2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

K.V.

¶24

WP(C).No. 35923 of 2017 (M)

¶25

APPENDIX

¶26

PETITIONER(S) -------------	' EXHIBITS ----------
EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.11.2016.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 20.3.2015.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE PRINCIPAL TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.11.2016.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 9.3.2016 SHOWING THE SUCCESSFUL OF NET BY THE 2ND PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE PRINCIPAL OF M.A COLLEGE INDICATING THAT THE 2ND PETITIONER'S APPOINTMENT IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE UNIVERSITY STATUTES.
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 1.11.2016.
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 20.3.2015 SHOWING THE SUCCESSFUL COMPLETION OF NET BY THE 3RD PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE PRINCIPAL OF M.A COLLEGE INDICATING THAT THE 3RD PETITIONER'S APPOINTMENT IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE UNIVERSITY STATUTES.
EXHIBIT P10	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 7.2.2017.
EXHIBIT P11	TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 13.1.2013 SHOWING THE SUCCESSFUL COMPLETION OF NET BY THE 4TH PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P12	TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY OF M.A COLLEGE INDICATING THAT THE 4TH PETITIONER'S APPOINTMENT IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE UNIVERSITY STATUTES.
EXHIBIT P13	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 7.2.2017.
EXHIBIT P14	TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 27.6.2013 SHOWING THE SUCCESSFUL COMPLETION OF NET BY THE 5TH PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P15	TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY OF M.A COLLEGE INDICATING THAT THE 5TH PETITIONER'S APPOINTMENT IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE UNIVERSITY STATUTES.
EXHIBIT P16	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 20.9.2017 ISSUED BY THE DCDC ADDRESSED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.

¶27

WP(C).No. 35923 of 2017 (M)

¶28

EXHIBIT P17	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 20.9.2017 ISSUED BY THE DCDC TO THE 2ND PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P18	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 20.9.2017 ISSUED BY THE DCDC ADDRESSED TO THE 3RD PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P19	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 20.9.2017 ISSUED BY THE DCDC ADDRESSED TO THE 4TH PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P20	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 20.9.2017 ISSUED BY THE DCDC ADDRESSED TO THE 5TH PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P21	TRUE COPY OF THE JOINT COMMUNICATION DATED 13.10.2017.
RESPONDENT(S)' --------------	ANNEXURES ---------
ANNEXURE 1	A TRUE COPY OF UO NO 1362/CDI/87/SUB APPROVAL/2017 DATED 8/3/2017.
ANNEXURE 11:	A TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN R.P.NO 406/2017 DATED 30/5/2017.

¶29

/TRUE COPY/

¶30

K.V. P.S.TO JUDGE

¶31

ANU SIVARAMAN, J.

¶32

W.P.(C) Nos. 35923 and 35969 of 2017

¶33

Dated this the 11^th day of December, 2017

¶34

J U D G M E N T

¶35

These writ petitions are filed seeking directions to the University to consider the request made by the petitioners with regard to payment of benefits due to them. W.P.(C) No.35969 of 2017 is preferred by the Assistant Professors working in the M.A College. They contend that they had been relieved for a period of two years for the purpose of taking up research work for conferral of PhD Degree. After the period was over, they had rejoined service and had also submitted representations seeking that the period of leave should be treated as duty for all purposes. The petitioners had preferred Ext.P22 representation before the Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department as well as the University seeking favourable orders in this regard. It is stated that their representation had been forwarded to the University duly recommended by the College as well.

¶36

It is stated that the request of the petitioners are

¶37

W.P.(C) Nos. 35923 and 35969 of 2017 2

¶38

not being considered by the University stating that the Principal in charge who had forwarded the request made by the petitioners had been interdicted from functioning as Principal in charge by an interim order of this Court in another writ petition. In the above circumstances, it is contended that the requests which were forwarded by the Principal in charge cannot be entertained and that the said requests are to be forwarded by the senior most teacher.

¶39

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that since the issue raised in the writ petition in which the interim order interdicting the Principal in charge for functioning as such was one concerning the appointment of the Principal, there is no justification whatsoever, in refusing to consider the request made by the petitioners only on the ground that it had been forwarded by the Principal-in-charge. The learned counsel also relies on Ext. P21 judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No.11385 of 2017 dated 10.4.2017 where the request with regard to the change of subject for a thesis had been forwarded by the Principal in charge and this Court had directed the consideration of the request notwithstanding the fact that it

¶40

W.P.(C) Nos. 35923 and 35969 of 2017 3

¶41

had been forwarded by the Principal in charge who had been interdicted from functioning as such.

¶42

A statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents 4 and 5 contending that the proposal in respect of the petitioners in both these writ petitions had been forwarded by the Principal in charge and the said person had been interdicted from functioning as Principal in charge and was approved only as a Drawing and Disbursing Officer. It is therefore contended that the proposals are returned to the college to be forwarded by the senior most teacher of the College. The learned counsel also produced an order dated 30.5.2017 in R.P No.406 of 2017 in W.P.C No.10597 of 2017 seeking to review Ext.P21 judgment. Considering the contentions advanced by the counsel appearing for the University, this Court had reiterated that though the Principal in charge had been interdicted from functioning as such, the same was only with regard to the appointment of Principal in the College and the petitioners who were unconcerned with the said dispute should not be put to difficulties only because their applications which have to be considered by the University were forwarded by the

¶43

W.P.(C) Nos. 35923 and 35969 of 2017 4

¶44

Principal in charge.

¶45

W.P.(C) No.35923 of 2017 is filed by the substitute teachers who had been appointed in the place of the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.35969 of 2017 claiming approval of salary for the periods during which they had actually worked. It is submitted that their request for approval is also not being considered on the ground that the Principal in charge ought not have forwarded the same. The petitioners in the said writ petition have also filed Ext.P21 representation addressing the respondents seeking orders, approving their appointments.

¶46

I have considered the contentions advanced on either side. I am of the opinion that the requests made by the petitioners in both these writ petitions are liable to be considered by the University in accordance with law. The reason that the request had been forwarded by the Drawing and Disbursing Officer, who had approval only to act as such cannot be a reason to put the petitioners to difficulties especially in view of the judgment of this Court dated 10.4.2017 as well as the order rendered in R.P No.406 of 2017 in W.P.C No.10597 of 2017. This Court had considered

¶47

W.P.(C) Nos. 35923 and 35969 of 2017 5

¶48

the objections of the University and had held that the request made for approval, salary as well as other related matters with regard to service of teachers and research scholars in the College are liable to be considered by the University notwithstanding the objections that they were forwarded by a person who had been interdicted from working as Principal in charge. The respondent University is duty bound to consider the request made by the petitioners in accordance with law. In view of the directions contained in the judgment referred to above, which I am in respectful agreement with, I am of the opinion that the University cannot insist that the proposals have to be returned to the College and forwarded by another person. In the above view of the matter, there will be a direction to the respondent University to take up, consider and pass orders on Ext.P21 representation in W.P.(C) No.35923 of 2017 and Ext.P22 representation in W.P.(C) No.35969 of 2017 in accordance with law and as provided in the UGC Regulations without insisting of forwarding of the proposals by any other person, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Orders in this regard shall be passed by the University

¶49

W.P.(C) Nos. 35923 and 35969 of 2017 6

¶50

within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶51

These writ petitions are ordered accordingly.

¶52

Sd/-

¶53

ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE

¶54

sab

¶55

The common judgment dated 11.12.2017 in W.P. (C)No.35923/2017 and W.P.(C)No.35969/2017 is corrected as per order dated 12.01.2018 in R.P.No.23/2018 in W.P.9C)No.35969/2017 in the following manner:

¶56

“The direction contained in the judgment to the respondent University to consider Exts.P21 and P22 is recalled. The 1^st respondent, before whom Ext.P22 was pending, will take up, consider and pass orders within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The observation in the first paragraph of the judgment to the effect that the petitioners had rejoined duty after completion of the research is also deleted.”

¶57

sd/-

¶58

Registrar (Judicial)

Mariya Rincy v. the Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mariya Rincy v. the Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department

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

Muraleedharan C.A. Vs State of Kerala

Dr.R.Gangadharan Nair Vs University of Kerala

Georgekutty M.P Vs Mahatma Gandhi University

The Corporate Manager Vs State of Kerala

Dr. Sophiammal Nattar P. Vs Deputy Director of Collegiate Education

Elizabeth Mani Vs State of Kerala