Allowed

Dr.K.D.Prathapan v. Kerala Agricultural University

Kerala HC9 Sept 2021WA/651/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ appeal against a Single Judge's judgment that dismissed a petition against an order rejecting a request for home station posting. The Court held the Registrar lacked authority under specific prior directions addressed to the Vice Chancellor.

What did the court decide?

Writ Appeal allowed; Impugned order quashed; Directions issued to Vice Chancellor to consider home station posting request within three weeks.

Dr.K.D.Prathapan Vs Kerala Agricultural University — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.

¶6

THURSDAY, THE 9^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021/18TH BHADRA, 1943

¶7

W.A NO.651 OF 2021

¶8

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 31.3.2021 IN W.P(C).NO.21278/2020 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶9

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶10

DR.K.D.PRATHAPAN

¶11

AGED 57 YEARS, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE, VELLAYANI, RESIDING AT QUARTERS NO.VI/6, VELLAYANI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ON ORDER OF REINSTATEMENT AND POSTING TO AGRONOMIC RESEARCH STATION CHALAKUDY, ERNAKULAM

¶12

BY ADVS.P.V.JAYACHANDRAN SRI.NIDHI BALACHANDRAN

¶13

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶14

1 KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR (IC), KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY P.O.VELLANIKKARA, THRISSUR-680 654.

¶15

2 THE VICE CHANCELLOR, KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, P.O.VELLANIKKARA, THRISSUR-680 654.

¶16

W.A.No.651/2021 :: 2 ::

¶17

3 THE REGISTRAR, KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY P.O.VELLANIKKARA, THRISSUR-680 654.

¶18

BY SRI.ROBSON PAUL, SC BY ADV.SMT.NICHU WILLINGTON

¶19

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

W.A.No.651/2021 :: 3 ::

¶21

J U D G M E N T

¶22

A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.

¶23

The petitioner in W.P.(C).No.21278 of 2020 is the appellant before us, aggrieved by the judgment dated 31.3.2021 of the learned Single Judge.

¶24

Shorn of unnecessary details, the limited point that arises for consideration in the instant case is whether the respondent University was justified in passing Ext.P11 order, rejecting the request of the appellant/writ petitioner for retention of his services at Vellayani, which was his home station ? In the writ petition, the petitioner impugned Ext.P11 order on the contention that, in an earlier round of litigation, this Court, by Ext.P10 judgment, had set aside the order of the Registrar of the University that rejected the request of the petitioner for retention at his home station, and directed his transfer to Chalakudy, and

¶25

W.A.No.651/2021 :: 4 ::

¶26

directed the Vice Chancellor of the University to consider and pass orders on the request made by the petitioner for retention at the home station, afresh, by taking note of the clauses in SRO No.293/72 and G.O. (P) 3/2017 as also the other contentions raised by the petitioner. It would appear that, in purported compliance with the directions issued by this Court in Ext.P10 judgment, the respondents passed Ext.P11 order dated 16.9.2020, which was signed by the Registrar of the University, the 3^rd respondent herein. The writ petitioner therefore impugned the said order on the ground that, when the direction issued by this Court was to the Vice Chancellor to pass the order on the request of the petitioner for reinstatement and posting at his home station, it was not open to the Registrar to pass the said order.

¶27

Through a counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent University, it was brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge that the draft order had been prepared by the Registrar and the same was placed before the Vice Chancellor, who carried out certain corrections in the draft order and thereafter approved it for issuing to the writ petitioner. It is stated that at the time of issuance of the order, the endorsement of “By

¶28

W.A.No.651/2021 :: 5 ::

¶29

order of Vice Chancellor” was omitted in the order, and that is how the order came to be seen as one issued by the Registrar. It was pointed out that this irregularity was later corrected by the University which issued a fresh order to the petitioner.

¶30

The learned Single Judge, who considered the issue, found that, inasmuch as the order passed by the University was a reasoned one, the contention of the petitioner, on merits, that he ought to be retained at Vellayani, even after his reinstatement, cannot be sustained. In particular, it was noticed that the petitioner was a person who was undergoing disciplinary proceedings, and his request for reinstatement had already been considered favourably by requiring him to report for work at Chalakudy. The learned Judge therefore deemed it unnecessary to interfere with Ext.P11 order that was impugned in the writ petition.

¶31

Before us, it is the submission of Sri.P.V. Jayachandran, the learned counsel for the appellant that the passing of the impugned order by the Registrar of the University breaches the specific directions issued by this Court in Ext.P10 judgment, in

¶32

W.A.No.651/2021 :: 6 ::

¶33

that, the specific direction contained therein was to the Vice Chancellor to consider and pass orders on the request of the petitioner for retention at Vellayani. He invokes the principle of delegatus non potest delegare to fortify his contentions on merit.

¶34

We have heard Sri.P.V. Jayachandran, the learned counsel for the appellant and also Sri.Robson Paul, the learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala Agricultural University, ably assisted by Smt.Nichu Willington, the learned counsel.

¶35

On a consideration of the rival submissions, we find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the request of the petitioner for a posting at his home station, consequent to revocation of suspension and reinstatement, ought to have been considered by the Vice Chancellor of the University and not by the Registrar. We take note of the peculiar circumstances under which Ext.P10 judgment of this Court came to be passed in the earlier round of litigation, when the petitioner had approached this Court aggrieved by an order of the Registrar that rejected his request for posting at the home station. On that occasion, this Court, while disposing the writ petition through

¶36

W.A.No.651/2021 :: 7 ::

¶37

Ext.P10 judgment, was of the view that the matter required a consideration by the Vice Chancellor, who was a superior authority to the Registrar. In our view, the specific directions issued in Ext.P10 judgment were with a view to ensuring that the case of the petitioner would be heard by the Vice Chancellor, who would then proceed to consider the submissions of the petitioner in the light of the SRO and G.O. referred to in the judgment, and then pass a reasoned order on merits. Inasmuch as such an order was not passed by the Vice Chancellor, we feel that the order impugned in the writ petition cannot be legally sustained. Thus, for the reasons stated above, we find ourselves unable to sustain the judgment of the learned Single Judge that refused to interfere with Ext.P11 order.

¶38

Resultantly, we set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge, and allow the Writ Appeal by quashing Ext.P11 order impugned therein. We direct the Vice Chancellor of the University to consider the request of the appellant/writ petitioner for a posting at his home station - Vellayani based on the SRO/G.O. referred to in Ext.P10 judgment, after affording the appellant an opportunity of being heard either through physical presence or

¶39

W.A.No.651/2021 :: 8 ::

¶40

through Video Conference, as the case may be. The Vice Chancellor shall pass fresh orders, as directed, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. We make it clear that we have not expressed any view on the merits of the appellant's claim.

¶41

The Writ Appeal is allowed as above.

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶44

Sd/MOHAMMED NIAS C.P. JUDGE

¶45

prp/10/9/21

Dr.K.D.Prathapan v. Kerala Agricultural University

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.K.D.Prathapan v. Kerala Agricultural University

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

V.Sasidharan, Vs Union of India

State of Kerala Vs Geethu R.Prasad

State of Kerala Vs Reshma Salim

The State of Kerala, Vs Anjana K.A.

Travancore Devaswom Board, Vs R. Kishor

W. Vimala Vs State of Kerala