Dismissed

C.Gopinathan, v. the University of Calicut

Kerala HC25 Nov 2022WP(C)/19094/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, an unqualified Associate Professor, challenged promotions of respondents 2 and 3 (also unqualified in his view) to secure jurisdiction for a public interest plea. Court held that since respondents retired, granting a declaration is academic and outside Article 226 jurisdiction, rendering the petition legally untenable.

What did the court decide?

None. The court closed the writ petition without granting any relief, noting academic relevance due to respondents' retirement.

C.Gopinathan, Vs the University of Calicut — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 25^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 19094 OF 2019

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

C.GOPINATHAN, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.MADHAVAN MENON, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF BIO TECHNOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, RESIDING AT NAVAMI, EAST HILL, KOZHIKODE. BY ADVS. V.V.SURENDRAN P.A.HARISH

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O., TENHIPALAM, MALAPPURAM- 673635.

¶10

2 DR.M.V.JOSEPH, PROFESSOR (RETD), DEPARTMENT OF BIOTECHNOLOGY, CALICUT UNIVERSITY NOW RESIDING AT D-4, KINGSTON, GALAXY HOME, CHILAVANNUR ROAD, P.O.KADAVANTHARA, KOCHI- 682020. 3 DR.P.R.MANISH, PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF BIOTECHNOLOGY, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O., TENHIPALAM, MALAPPURAM- 673635. 4 THE UNIVERSITY OF GRANTS COMMISSION, BAHADURSHAH ZAFAR MARG, NEW DELHI- 110002. BY ADVS. SMT.APARNA RAJAN SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, CGC SRI.SREEDHAR RAVINDRAN SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN - SC

¶11

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

WP(C)No. 19094 of 2019

¶13

: 2 :

¶14

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.

¶15

========================= W.P (C) No. 19094 of 2019

¶16

==========================

¶17

Dated this the 25^th November, 2022

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

The petitioner, who is working as an Associate Professor in the Department of Biotechnology of the University of Calicut, assails the promotions of respondents 2 and 3 as Reader and Professor respectively, on the ground that neither of them have obtained PhD in the “subjects concerned”.

¶20

Sri.P.A Harish - learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that even though his client has two international patents and is a man of great eminence, his promotion has been held up solely on the ground that he was not qualified; while respondents 2 and 3, who are also not qualified, were granted the said benefit, clearly demonstrating discrimination and hostile treatment. He submitted that, therefore, his client had no other option, but to challenge Ext.P18 order of the 1^st respondent University, whereby, the impugned promotions were afforded to respondents 2 and 3.

¶21

Sri.P.C Sasidharan - learned Standing Counsel for the

¶22

WP(C)No. 19094 of 2019

¶23

: 3 :

¶24

University, in response, submitted that this writ petition is not maintainable in the absence of plea for issuance of writ of quo warranto , since the petitioner, admittedly, was not qualified to be promoted as a Professor at the relevant time. He pointed out that petitioner did not have PhD in any subject, when the post became vacant and therefore, what has been now projected in this case is a cause virtually in public interest, which cannot be entertained by this Court, while acting in service jurisprudence. He thus prayed that this writ petition be dismissed; explaining that respondents 2 and 3 were granted promotion under the Career Advancement Scheme.

¶25

Sri.S.Krishnamoorthy – learned Standing Counsel for the University Grants Commission (UGC), submitted that, in matters of evaluation of merit and assessment of candidates for the purpose of promotions, UGC gives large amount of independence to the University; and therefore that he does not want to comment on the specific instances pointed out by the petitioner as regards respondents 2 and 3. He, however, added that, going by the applicable regulations of his client, the persons to be appointed require to be qualified under its terms and any violation thereof cannot be found to be legally permissible.

¶26

WP(C)No. 19094 of 2019

¶27

: 4 :

¶28

When I assess and evaluate the afore submissions, I must say that there is great force in the submissions of Sri.P.C.Sasidharan because, the petitioner filed this writ petition impugning the promotions of respondents 2 and 3; however, conceding that he was not qualified to seek the same at the relevant time. His argument is that, he is impelling this case for the best interests of the University and the student community as a whole, because the applicable Regulations of the UGC mandate that a Reader or a Professor ought to have obtained PhD in the concerned subject.

¶29

However, it is indubitable that 2^nd respondent has PhD in Microbiology and it is virtually admitted by the petitioner that this falls within the sweep of the broader concept of Biotechnology, or at least “Allied Natural Subjects”. It is only in the case of the 3^rd respondent, can the petitioner has any claim, but again, as rightly argued by Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, in the absence of a plea for a writ of quo warranto , an argument in public interest certainly cannot be maintained. In other words, even assuming that 3^rd respondent is wanting in his qualifications, a challenge by the petitioner can be projected against him, only if he is qualified and claiming the said post, but not otherwise. if he wanted any other benefit, he ought

¶30

¶31

: 5 :

¶32

to have sought for a writ of quo warranto against the 3^rd respondent, which certainly this Court could have considered even in public interest.

¶33

That being said, the fact remains, going by the pleadings, that respondents 2 and 3 have now retired; and therefore, any judgment that this Court may make in this writ petition could only have an academic relevance. It is now well settled that a declaration in academic interest is also not within the province of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶34

Therefore, leaving open all the contentions of the petitioner, I close this writ petition without any relief being granted.

¶35

I, however, clarify that nothing contained in this judgment will affect the petitioner detrimentally, as and when he becomes eligible for further promotions.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

anm

: 6 :

PETITIO EXHIBIT	NER EXHI P1	BITS A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE ANNA UNIVERSITY IN THE FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER DATED 01.09.1995.
EXHIBIT	P2	A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 03.07.1995 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT	P3	A TRUE COPY OF THE ADDENDUM NOTIFICATION DATED 31.07.1995 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT	P4	A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE UGC DATED 07.10.1996.
EXHIBIT	P5	A TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILED NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 31.07.1995.
EXHIBIT	P6	A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE UGC REGULATION 2000 DATED 04.04.2000.
EXHIBIT	P7	A TRUE COPY OF THE REVISED MODIFIED GUIDELINES ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR GRANTING GUIDESHIP.
EXHIBIT	P8	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.11.2006 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT PROMOTING THE 2ND RESPONDENT AS PROFESSOR.
EXHIBIT	P9	A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE UGC DATED 17.05.2013.
EXHIBIT	P10	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 08.02.2008 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT PROMOTING THE 3RD RESPONDENT AS READER.
EXHIBIT	P11	A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN W.P.(C)3024/2008 DATED 19.09.2012.
EXHIBIT	P12	A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE UGC REGULATION DATED 06.06.2010.
EXHIBIT	P13	A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION MADE BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 30.04.2013.
EXHIBIT	P14	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.08.2017 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT PROMOTING THE 3RD RESPONDENT AS PROFESSOR.
EXHIBIT	P15	A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN W.P(C)10999/2014 DATED 05.01.2018.
EXHIBIT	P16	A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN W.P.(C)10999/14 DATED 21.03.2019.

¶43

¶44

: 7 :

¶45

EXHIBIT P17	A TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILED NOTES
	SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P18	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.05.19 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P19	A TRUE COPY OF THE PATENT CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DATED 10.03.2017 BY THE CONTROLLER GENERAL OF PATENTS.
EXHIBIT P20	A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P21	A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P22	A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P23	A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P24	A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 17.06.2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P25	A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 31.08.2021 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT AWARDING PH.D TO THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P26	A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION MADE BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE REGISTRAR DATED 09.09.2021
Exhibit P27	A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 09.12.2008 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY WITH A COPY OF SRI.K.V.LAZAR
RESPONDENTS' EXH	IBITS
EXHIBIT R3(a)	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP NO.11113/96 DATED 28.11.96
EXHIBIT R3(b)	TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF DEGREE OF DOCTORATE IN ZOOLOGY ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT DATED 6.5.92
EXHIBIT R3(c)	TRUE COPY OF THE EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF MICROBIOLOGY & CELL BIOLOGY DATED 25.4.1994
EXHIBIT R3(d)	TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION UNDER THE RTI ACT 2005 DATED 04.10.2014
EXHIBIT R3(e)	TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE UNIVERSITY DATED 17.11.2014
EXHIBIT R3(f)	TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE UNIVERSITY DATED 26.12.2014
EXHIBIT R3(g)	TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF RESEARCH PAPERS
	SUBMITTED BY THE DR.P.R.MANISH KUMAR, 3RD RESPONDENT DATED NIL

C.Gopinathan, v. the University of Calicut

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Gopinathan, v. the 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

Sudha Jacob Koshy Vs State of Kerala

Vijayakumari Vs Malappuram Service Co-Operative Bank

Reena Vs V.R. Premkumar

Thomaskutty.C.G Vs Melila Servive Co-Operative Bank

Dr.Radhika T. Vs Dr.Meera

V.H. Shafeek Vs the Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies (General)