Partly allowed

Arun K.V. v. University of Calicut

Kerala HC14 Sept 2020WP(C)/535/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala issued a direction to the University of Calicut to consider a petitioner's representation concerning the rotation of headship in affiliated colleges. The court held that while the petition may not be maintainable on merit, the university must address the representation expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to consider the petitioner's representation and decide on forwarding it to the Senate for amendment of statutes within two months, after hearing the petitioner.

Arun K.V. Vs University of Calicut — 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

MONDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 23RD BHADRA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.535 OF 2020(N)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

ARUN K.V., AGED 32 YEARS, S/O. GANGADHARAN N.K, SENATE MEMBER, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT AND ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, PG AND RESEARCH DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE, SREE KERALA VARMA COLLEGE, THRISSUR 680 011

¶8

BY ADVS.

¶9

SRI.S.PRASANTH (AYYAPPANKAVU) SMT.VARSHA BHASKAR SRI.JYOTHISH D.MONY

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, THENHIPALAM, MALAPPURAM 673 635

¶12

2 VICE CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, THENHIPALAM, MALAPPURAM 673 635

¶13

3 THE SYNDICATE, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, THENHIPALAM, MALAPPURAM 673 635

¶14

R1-3 BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.09.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No.535 OF 2020

-2-

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 14th day of September 2020

¶20

The petitioner, who is stated to be an Assistant Professor in the Sree Kerala Varma College, Thrissur, has filed this Writ Petition seeking primarily that the 1^st respondent - University of Calicut be directed to initiate steps to amend its First Statutes to provide for rotation of headship in the affiliated Colleges under it. He further says that he has preferred Ext.P1 representation before the 1^st and 2^nd respondents and prays that the same be directed to be forwarded to the 3^rd respondent - Senate of the University for taking an apposite decision as to the amendment of the Statutes to provide for the afore requested rotation of headship in affiliated Colleges.

¶21

In response to the above submissions made by Sri.Prasanth S., learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the University, Sri.P.C. Sasidharan, submitted that the petitioner is himself a member of the Senate and therefore, that this writ petition

¶22

WP(C).No.535 OF 2020 -3-

¶23

is not maintainable. He further submitted that no writ, especially in the nature of mandamus, can be maintained as against the University seeking that its First Statutes be amended.

¶24

Even when I find some force in the submissions of Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, learned Standing Counsel for the University, the fact remains that as is evident from Ext.P6, the process of amendment appears to have already engaged the attention of the University and its competent authorities; and therefore, I am of the view that it would only be in the fitness of things that the University be directed to consider Ext.P1 representation and take an appropriate decision thereon, including as to whether it requires to be forwarded to the Senate.

¶25

In the afore circumstances and without entering into the merits of any of the dialectical contentions of the parties, including as to whether Ext.P1 is maintainable at the hands of the petitioner, I direct the competent among the respondents to take up the said representation and dispose of the same, after affording an opportunity of

¶26

WP(C).No.535 OF 2020

¶27

-4-

¶28

being heard to the petitioner - either physically or through video conferencing - thus leading to a decision as to whether any steps thereon is required to be taken, including to forward the same to the Senate for appropriate amendment of the Statutes.

¶29

The afore exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

¶30

This Writ Petition is thus ordered.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

JUDGE

WP(C).No.535 OF 2020

-5-

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶39

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 11-11-2019 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶40

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ARTICLE PUBLISHED BY THE PETITIONER THAT APPEARED ON SUPRABHAATHAN DAILY DATED 9/10/2019

¶41

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 25/10/2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RRESPONDENT

¶42

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.117239/PLDA-ASST-2/2019/ADMN DATED 14/11/2019 SENT BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER

¶43

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ARTICLE TITLED CHENNAI -ROTATION RUNS DEEP IN STATE VARSITIES PUBLISHED IN DECCAN CHRONICLE DAILY DATED 7/3/2018

¶44

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.221380/GAII-F3/2019/ADMN DATED 11-02-2020 SENT BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶45

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.30582/PLD-AASST-2/2020/ADMN DATED 13-02-2020.

¶46

//TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE

Arun K.V. v. University of Calicut

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun K.V. v. University of Calicut

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

Giji Tess Gregory Vs the State of Kerala

Sufaira Shamsudeen, Vs the State of Kerala

Nidhin George Vs Mahatma Gandhi University

Navya Chandran Vs State of Kerala

Ravi Vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

Jinesh T., Vs State of Kerala