Disposed

Navya Chandran v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Sept 2020WP(C)/5933/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala issued directions to the College to issue a revised appointment order for the petitioner, an Assistant Professor appointed to a sanctioned post, to enable her separate approval by the University immediately.

What did the court decide?

Directed the College to issue a revised appointment order in the petitioner's favour and forward it to the University within two weeks.

Navya Chandran Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | 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.5933 OF 2020(N)

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

NAVYA CHANDRAN AGED 27 YEARS W/O VISHNU B.KURUP, CHANDRAKAANTHAM HOUSE, COLLECTORATE P.O.KOTTAYAM-686 002.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.) SMT.NISHA GEORGE SRI.A.L.NAVANEETH KRISHNAN

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶11

2 THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.

¶12

3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, GANDHINAGAR, ERNAKULAM-682 020.

¶13

4 THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSINI HILLS P.O.KOTTAYAM-686 560, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.

¶14

5 THE REGISTRAR, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSINI HILLS P.O.KOTTAYAM-686 560,

¶15

6 THE COCHIN COLLEGE, COCHIN, ERNAKULAM,PIN-682 002, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL.

¶16

R4 BY SRI.ASOK M. CHERIAN, SC, M.G. UNIVERSITY R6 BY ADV. SRI.P.P.JACOB R6 BY ADV. SMT.MARIYAM JACOB

¶17

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

¶18

WP(C).No.5933 OF 2020(N)

¶19

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

Dated this the 14th day of September 2020

¶22

The petitioner says that, she was appointed, along with four

¶23

others, in the services of the 6^th respondent College as Assistant Professor in English Department, on the basis of Ext.P9 Rank List, wherein, she has been placed as the first.

¶24

According to the petitioner, even though her appointment was validly made by the College, as evident from Exts.P10 and P11, the University has refused to approve it, solely for the reason that her name has been clubbed along with four others, whose names are included as rank Nos.2 to 5 in Ext.P9 rank list. She says that the University has, through Ext.12 proceedings, directed the College to issue a separate appointment order in her favour, showing the post to be one sanctioned by the Government; but that in spite of subsequent reminders, ie. Exts.P13 and P14, the College has refused to do so, but has answered it through Ext.P15, wherein they assert that all the five appointments must be approved at one go.

¶25

WP(C).No.5933 OF 2020(N)

¶26

¶27

The petitioner says that the stand of the 6^th respondent - College is untenable, since it is conceded by the Authorities that the post to which she has been appointed, namely the 8^th post in the Department of English, is a duly sanctioned one, and therefore, that she is entitled to be approved from the date of her appointment, namely, 11.9.2017.

¶28

Sri. Asok M Cheriyan, learned Standing Counsel for the University, affirmed the afore submissions made on behalf of the petitioner by her learned Senior Counsel Sri. George Poonthottam, assisted by Sri.Arun Chandran, and added that, the University is also of the view that the petitioner's appointment must be approved immediately. He says that, it is in such circumstances, that the University had directed the 6^th respondent College to issue a revised appointment order, showing her post to be the one which had already been sanctioned by the Government. The learned Standing Counsel then accused the College, of refusing to do so; and said that consequently, the University has been incapacitated from approving her appointment.

¶29

WP(C).No.5933 OF 2020(N)

¶30

¶31

Sri.P.P.Jacob, learned Standing Counsel for the 6^th respondent – College, submitted that the stand of the University, that they will approve only the appointment of the petitioner and not that of the four other teachers who were also appointed from Ext.P9 rank list, is wholly improper and illegal since, going by Ext.P2 proceedings, the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education - the third respondent, has found that the work load of the College is 191 hours and therefore, that 12 posts are entitled to the College. He says, it is in such circumstances that the petitioner and four others from Ext.P9 Rank List had been appointed; and prays that this Court direct the University to approve the appointments of all of them, but not that of the petitioner alone.

¶32

There is no doubt that going by Ext.P2, the work load of the College would justify 12 posts, out of which seven have been earlier filled up. The petitioner is indisputably Rank No.1 in Ext.P9, and therefore, she has been appointed to the 8^th vacancy available in the College. This vacancy is conceded by all the respondents to be sanctioned by the Government. Obviously, therefore, the petitioner's plea for approval, based on Exts.P10

¶33

WP(C).No.5933 OF 2020(N)

¶34

¶35

and P11 appointment orders, is certainly tenable and ought to have been granted by the University even without insisting that a revised appointment order be issued.

¶36

That said, I am aware that the University appears to have made this request to the 6^th respondent College because, pursuant to Exts.P10 and P11 orders, another appointment order is stated to have been issued showing not only the petitioner, but also four others, who are rank Nos.2 to 5 in Ext.P9 Rank List. I see that it is in such circumstances that the University directed the College to issue a separate appointment order to the petitioner showing her to be appointed against the 8^th vacancy in their English Department, which has been sanctioned by the Government.

¶37

In the afore perspective, I am certainly of the view that, whatever be the contentions the rival parties may have with respect to the number of hours and the vacancies in the College, the post to which the petitioner has been appointed, being admittedly a sanctioned one, her approval cannot be denied any further. Of course, this is not to mean that the appointments of

¶38

WP(C).No.5933 OF 2020(N)

¶39

¶40

other fours, who are rank Nos.2 to 5 in Ext.P9 Rank List, are also not to be approved; but this is an issue that this Court will have to consider in W.P.(C)No 11483/2020, which has been filed by them. I do not, therefore, feel it necessary or proper, that the petitioner be asked to wait until such time as the claims of other four teachers are decided by this Court.

¶41

Resultantly and since all parties are in unison,, that the petitioner has been appointed to the 8^th vacancy in the English Department of the 6^th respondent College, which is admittedly a sanctioned post, I order this writ petition and direct the college to issue a revised appointment order in her favour and forward the same to the University within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On the revised appointment order reaching the University in terms of these directions, the competent Authority therein will approve the same, subject to other requirements and qualifications, at the earliest, but not later that two months thereafter.

¶42

Needless to say, on such approval being granted by the University, the Competent Authority of the Government will issue

¶43

WP(C).No.5933 OF 2020(N)

¶44

¶45

necessary orders to sanction and disburse the applicable allowances to the petitioner without any avoidable delay, but not

¶46

later than after three months the order of approval reaches them.

¶47

Sd/

¶48

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶49

JUDGE

¶50

Jm/

¶51

WP(C).No.5933 OF 2020(N)

¶52

¶53

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5933/2020

¶54

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶55

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE GO (MS) NO 260/2010/H,EDN DATED 20.8.2010 ALONG WITH THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ANNEXURE
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO MG2/2398/2016 DATED 14.2.2017 WITH ITS TYPED LEGIBLE
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.12.2016 IN WPC NO 39088 OF 2016 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 21.3.2017
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED9.5.2017 IN WPC NO 14501/2017 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT) NO 2004/2017/H.EDN DATE 6.11.2017
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 9.6.2017
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF THE RESUME SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE SECTION COMMITTEE DATED 11.9.2017
EXHIBIT P10	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO ENG/CES/01/2017 DATED 11.9.2017
EXHIBIT P11	TRUE COPY OF THE REVISED APPOINTMENT ORDER NO ENG/CES/1/2017 DATED 11.9.2017
EXHIBIT P12	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED ACB2/02/3873/2017 DATED 2.3.2018
EXHIBIT P13	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO ACB2/02/3873/2017 DATED 14.6.2019 ALONG WITH ITS TYPED LEGIBLE COPY

¶56

WP(C).No.5933 OF 2020(N)

¶57

¶58

EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO ACB 11/2/3873/2017 DATED 5.8.2019 ALONG WITH ITS TYPED LEGIBLE COPY EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 24.8.2019 ISSUED BY THE MANAGER OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT COLLEGE EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.1.2018 IN WPC NO 33527/2016 PASSED BY THIS HOO'BLE COURT EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF THE GO (RT) NO 177/2019/HED DATED 21.6.2019 EXHIBIT P18 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO-359/B2/B/ACADEMIC /2020 DATED 25.2.2020 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY.

Navya Chandran v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Navya Chandran v. State of Kerala

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

Arun K.V. Vs University of Calicut

Ravi Vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

Jinesh T., Vs State of Kerala