Disposed

Dr.T.S.Lancelet v. the Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit

Kerala HC16 Dec 2020WP(C)/19350/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court refused to direct immediate appointment of the petitioner as Head of Department due to pending plagiarism allegations. The petitioner admitted the proceedings are ongoing without a stay order. The Court directed the Syndicate to complete the inquiry within 45 days.

What did the court decide?

Directed Syndicate to complete plagiarism proceedings by 15.03.2021 and consider appointment only if petitioner is exonerated.

Dr.T.S.Lancelet Vs the Sree Sankaracharya University… — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.19350 OF 2020(P)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

DR.T.S.LANCELET, AGED 52 YEARS W/O.J.DALVIN SURESH, RESIDING AT LANS VILLA, MUNDANGA MUTTAM, NEELESWARAM, KALADY 683 575

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.MANU GOVIND SHRI.AYESHA MARIA JOHN SRI.A.JAYASANKAR

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE SREE SANKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY OF SANSKRIT REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR, KALADY - 683 574

¶11

2 THE REGISTRAR THE SREE SANKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY OF SANSKRIT, KALADY 683 574

¶12

3 DR.SAJU T.S., HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT, GEOGRAPHY, SREE SANKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY OF SANSKRIT, KALADY 683 574

¶13

SRI.PRASANTH S., SC.

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.12.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C).No.19350 OF 2020(P)

¶16

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

Dated this the 16th day of December 2020

¶19

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking that she be appointed as the Head of the Department of Geography in the first respondent – University, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶20

The petitioner asserts that she is fully qualified to be appointed as the Head of the Department (HOD) but that the University is denying her the said opportunity without assigning any particular reason. The petitioner, therefore, prays that the University be directed to consider her for being appointed as the Head of the Department at the earliest.

¶21

However, in response to the submissions of the petitioner as voiced by her learned counsel, Sri.A.Jayasankar, the learned standing counsel for the University submitted that the petitioner has been alleged to have committed plagiarism and Ext.R1(c) report has been obtained by the Vice Chancellor from the Academic Plagiarism Committee of the University. He submitted that as long as the petitioner continues to be under that allegation and until her name is fully cleared, she cannot be considered for the post of Head of the Department, since it

¶22

WP(C).No.19350 OF 2020(P)

¶23

¶24

involves great responsibilities and duties. The learned standing counsel, therefore, submitted that unless the proceedings against the petitioner are completed with respect to the allegations of plagiarism, the University is incapacitated from considering her for being appointed as the Head of the Department.

¶25

To a pointed question from this Court, the learned standing counsel for the University submitted that the report of the Academic Plagiarism Committee is now placed before the Syndicate and that the said Authority will take a final decision thereon without any further delay. He, therefore, prayed that this writ petition be dismissed.

¶26

When I consider the afore submissions and go through the materials available on record, it is evident that even the petitioner admits that she is being proceeded against by the University for plagiarism. Of course, she has a specific defence that the Regulations under which she is being proceeded against does not have the force of law or is non-existent; but I cannot go into these issues at this stage because she herself admits that the proceedings initiated against her by the University are pending and that they have been challenged by

¶27

WP(C).No.19350 OF 2020(P)

¶28

¶29

her in W.P.(C) No.46888/2019. However, it is admitted by the both sides that no order of stay has been granted by this Court in the said writ petition against the proceedings pending against her.

¶30

I am, therefore, of the firm view that the University cannot be found fault with in not having acceded to her request to be appointed as an HOD, when allegations of plagiarism are still undecided against her.

¶31

Of course, this is not to mean that this Court has found the petitioner to be guilty in any manner; but only that unless she is able to clear her name through the mechanism as has been provided under law, it would not be justified for this Court to offer her any benefit through this writ petition. This is more so because, as is evident from Ext.P3 produced by the petitioner herself, the Registrar of the University has recorded that the proceedings against her are still pending before the Syndicate.

¶32

I am, therefore, of the firm view that the petitioner must await the completion of proceedings against her or orders from this Court in W.P.(C) No.46888/2019, before she is appointed to be an HOD as prayed for by her.

¶33

WP(C).No.19350 OF 2020(P)

¶34

¶35

In the afore circumstances, I order this writ petition and direct that, subject to the decision to be taken by this Court in W.P.(C) No.46888/2019, the Syndicate of the University shall complete the proceedings with respect to the plagiarism against her, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than 15.03.2021 and if she is found exonerated from the same, her claim for being appointed as an Head of the Department shall be considered without any further delay thereafter.

¶36

Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶37

Stu

¶38

JUDGE

¶39

The words and figures 'W.P.(C) No.46888/2019' occurring in the 5^th , 8^th and last paragraphs of the judgment dated 16.12.2020 in W.P.(C) No.19350/2020 is corrected as 'W.P.(C) No.26888/2019' as per the order dated 27.01.2021 in I.A.No.01/2021 in W.P.(C) No.19350/2020.

¶40

Sd/- DEPUTY REGISTRAR

¶41

WP(C).No.19350 OF 2020(P)

¶42

¶43

APPENDIX

¶44

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶45

EXHIBIT P1	RETYPED COPY OF THE ORDER NO.1470/AD.A3/SSUS/2018 DATED 01.06.2020.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 17.6.2020 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.AD.A3/4688 SSUS DATED 14.08.2020
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.11.2018 IN WPC 14055 OF 2018
EXHIBIT P5	RETYPED COPY OF DECISION OF THE SYNDICATE DATED 28.04.2018 IN ITEM NO.18 (PRODUCED AS EXHIBIT P6 IN WPC 14055/2018)
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.2.2020 IN WA NO.36/2019.
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 27.08.2020 FROM THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT'S	ANNEXURES:
EXHIBIT R1A	TRUE COPY OF ORDER BO 1470/ADA3/SSUS/2018 DATED 2.2.2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT R1B	TRUE COPY OF ORDER BO 4688/ADA3/SSUS/2016 DATED 10.4.2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT R1C	TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMIC MISCONDUCT PANEL DATED 11.6.2019 ALONG WITH THE REPORT.
EXHIBIT R1D	TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE M.PHIL THESIS TITLED " A GEOGRAPHICAL STUDY OF TRIBAL SETTLEMENTS IN THODUPUZHA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT, KERALA.
EXHIBIT R1E	TRUE COPY OF THE PAPER TITLED " SITE AND SITUATION OF THE TRIBAL SETTLEMENTS IN
	THODUPUZHA TALUK" PUBLISHED IN THE JOURNAL

¶46

WP(C).No.19350 OF 2020(P)

¶47

¶48

'THE PHILOSOPHER' AS AUTHORED BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT R1F TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO ACD A.1/5543/SSUS/2018-1 DATED 20.8.2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT R1G TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO ACD A.1/5543/SSUS/2018-2 DATED 20.8.2019 SENT BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT R1H TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO ACD A.1/5543/SSUS/2018 DATED 30.8.2019 SENT BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT R1I TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE PLAGIARISM DISCIPLINARY AUTHORTITY DATED 6.9.2019 EXHIBIT R1J TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE MINUTES OF THE 181 MEETING OF THE SYNDICATE HELD ON 18.1.2020 EXHIBIT R1K TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE SYNDICATE HELD ON 26.5.2020 EXHIBIT R1L TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO A.C.D. B1/14928/SSUS/2017 DATED 9.5.2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ANNEXURE R1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMIC MISCONDUCT PANEL DATED 11/06/2019 ALONG WITH THE REPORT. ANNEXURE R1(B) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. ACDA 1/5543/SSUS/2018-1 DATED 20/08/2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE R1(C) TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO. ACDA.1/5543/SSUS/2018-2 DATED 20/08/2019 SENT BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. ANNEXURE R1(D) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. ACDA.1/5543/SSUS/2018 DATED 30/08/2019 SENT BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶49

WP(C).No.19350 OF 2020(P)

¶50

¶51

ANNEXURE R1(E) TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE PLAGIARISM DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY DATED 06/09/2019. ANNEXURE R1(F) TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE MINUTES OF THE 181ST MEETING OF THE SYNDICATE HELD ON 18/01/2020. ANNEXURE R1(G) TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE SYNDICATE HELD ON 26/05/2020.

Dr.T.S.Lancelet v. the Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.T.S.Lancelet v. the Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.S.Aswathy Vs the State of Kerala

Manager, Sree Sethu Parvathy Bhai Higher Secondary School Vs State of Kerala

Bichaminabi N.V. Vs the District Educational Officer, Kozhikode

A.G.Dinesh Vs Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd.

Bindu R.G., Vs the State of Kerala

Valsala M., Vs the State of Kerala