The High Court, Bench of K. Surendra Mohan and Annie John JJ., dismissed the appeal against the Single Judge's judgment quashing the University order. The Court held that the Principal-in-charge, who was a Drawing and Disbursing Officer, was competent to forward the petitioner's PhD extension application.
The Writ Appeal fails and is 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 K.SURENDRA MOHAN &
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANNIE JOHN
MONDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 7TH PHALGUNA, 1939
WA.No. 486 of 2018 IN WPC. 39603/2017
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C)39603/2017 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 20-12-2017
APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENTS 4 & 5
1 THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR,PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, ATHIRAMPUZHA.P.O,KOTTAYAM-686560.
2 THE DIRECTOR, COLLEGE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL,MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADHARSHINI BUILDING, ATHIRAMPUZHA.P.O,KOTTAYAM-686560.
BY ADV.SRI.ASOK M. CHERIAN, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY
RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER & RESPONDENT NO 1,2,3 & 6:
1. R. MEERA, DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS,NIRMALA COLLEGE,MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
3. THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, 6TH FLOOR,VIKAS BHAVAN, PALAYAM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695003.
4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, NEAR MCRV MEN'S HOSTEL NO.11,HOSPITAL RD., ERNAKULAM,KERALA-682011.
5. THE UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION, SOUTH WESTERN REGIONAL OFFICE,P.K.BLOCK, PALACE ROAD,GANDHI NAGAR,BANGALORE-560009.
R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI A J VARGHESE R BY SRI.ROY CHACKO
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
kkj
K.SURENDRA MOHAN & ANNIE JOHN, JJ.
W.A. No.486 of 2018
---------------------------------------------Dated this the 26th day of February, 2018
J U D G M E N T
Surendra Mohan, J.
The Mahatma Gandhi University and the Director of College Development Council, respondents 4 and 5
respectively in W.P.(C) No.39603 of 2017, are before us in appeal challenging the judgment dated 20.12.2017 of the learned Single Judge. The Writ Petition was filed by the first respondent herein challenging exhibit P9 proceedings by which exhibit P4 application preferred by her was rejected. Exhibit P4 was an application submitted by the first respondent seeking extension of the period of completing her Ph.D. Research by ten years. As per exhibit exhibit P9 order, the application was returned by the University stating that the same had been forwarded by the Principal-in-charge. There are disputes regarding the entitlement of the said person to continue as the Principalin-charge. Cases are pending before this Court also.
-:2:-
W.A. No.486 of 2018
According to the University, the said person has been interdicted by this Court from functioning as the Principalin-charge. The learned Single Judge has allowed the Writ Petition and set aside Exhibit P9 holding that disputes regarding the entitlement to continue as the Principal-incharge cannot disqualify the said person from discharging the duties of the Principal and attending to the day-to-day affairs of the college. It has therefore been found that, the request of the first respondent, exhibit P4, was rejected by the University, without any valid reason.
-:3:-
W.A. No.486 of 2018
Officer and therefore, he was not entitled to forward exhibit P4 request.
he has been functioning as the Principal-in-charge and discharging the duties of the said office. The day-to-day today affairs of the college are required to be attended to, in the routine manner to ensure that the institution
functions smoothly. Any disruption in the smooth functioning of the college would affect the interests of the students, teachers as well as the institution itself. Forwarding of a request like exhibit P4 need not await determination of the question as to who is the rightful claimant to be the Principal of the College. The person who has forwarded exhibit P4 is admittedly Drawing and Disbursing Officer. He is also functioning as the teacher in
-:4:-
W.A. No.486 of 2018
charge of the duties of the Principal. Therefore, he was competent to forward exhibit P4 to the University. The action of the University in rejecting the same for the only reason that it was forwarded by the Principal-in-charge who is the Drawing and Disbursing Officer cannot be sustained. The learned Single Judge has therefore rightly quashed exhibit P9 and allowed the Writ Petition.
For the above reasons, we do not find any grounds to admit this Writ Appeal or to grant any of the reliefs sought for. This Writ Appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.
K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE
ANNIE JOHN JUDGE
kkj
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a Drawing and Disbursing Officer who is also functioning as Principal-in-charge has the competence to forward an extension application to the University.
Whether disputes regarding the person's entitlement to act as Principal invalidate the receipt of an academic application.
Whether the High Court below correctly quashed the University order rejecting the application forwarded by the Principal-in-charge.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY
THE DIRECTOR, COLLEGE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
R. MEERA
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION
THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION
K.SURENDRA MOHAN
ANNIE JOHN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
