Allowed

The Chief Executive Trustee v. Kerala University of Health Sciences

Kerala HC19 Jan 2023WP(C)/101/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the High Court set aside a cursory order refusing the Principal's request to serve until age 70, despite University regulations specifying retirement at 65, directing the University competent authority to adjudicate the merit within one month while maintaining status quo.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; competent authority of the University directed to hear the matter of continuance till age 70 within one month; status quo maintained pending decision.

The Chief Executive Trustee Vs Kerala University of… — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 19^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 29TH POUSHA,

¶5

1944

¶6

WP(C) NO. 101 OF 2023

¶7

PETITIONERS:

¶8

1 THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE TRUSTEE LISSIE MEDICAL & EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS, LISSIE HOSPITAL COMPLEX, COCHIN , PIN - 682018

¶9

2 DR.JOHN JOSEPH, PRINCIPAL, LISSIE COLLEGE OF PHARMACY, COCHIN , PIN - 682018

¶10

BY ADVS. ALEX GEORGE (CHAMAPPARAYIL) TONY GEORGE KANNANTHANAM THOMAS GEORGE EBEE ANTONY

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 KERALA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, MEDICAL COLLEGE. P.O. TRICHUR, PIN - 680596

¶13

2 THE PHARMACY COUNCIL OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, NBCC CENTRE, 3RD FLOOR PLOT NO.2, COMMUNITY CENTRE, MAA ANANDAMAI MARG OKHLA PHASE I, NEW DELHI , PIN - 110020 BY ADV SRI.P.SREEKUMAR (LEGAL AID COUNSEL)

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

W.P. (C) No.101 of of 2023

¶16

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

Sri.Kurian George Kannanthanam – learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Sri.Alex George - learned counsel for the petitioners, argued that Ext.P5 order issued by the 1^st respondent - Kerala University of Health Sciences (KUHS) is a cursory one, issued without adverting to the applicable orders and circulars of the 2^nd respondent – Pharmacy Council of India (PCI) and other statutory bodies.

¶19

The learned Senior Counsel vehemently argued that, while the Regulations applicable to the KUHS prescribe no retirement age for the Principals of the Colleges affiliated to it, the PCI and other statutory bodies have made it clear that such persons can continue until the age of 70. He submitted that, however, in spite of this, under the guise of Ext.P5, the 2^nd petitioner has now refused permission to continue as the Principal of the College managed by the 1^st petitioner, even though he has only attained the age of 65. He thus prayed that Ext.P5 be set aside and the 1^st respondent be directed to allow his client to continue until the age of 70.

¶20

In response, Sri.P.Sreekumar – learned Standing Counsel for the KUHS, submitted that the afore assertions of

¶21

W.P. (C) No.101 of of 2023

¶22

¶23

learned Senior Counsel, that there are no Regulations for the KUHS, governing the area of retirement of Principals are untrue; and that Regulations No.3.3.1.5 of the 'Minimum Standard Requirements for the Pharmacy Course' published by them specifically stipulate that the age of retirement shall be 65. He, however, conceded, to a pointed question from this Court that this depends upon any further instructions to be given by the PCI - which he asserts are not issued as of now - enhancing the age of retirement.

¶24

Even when I hear Sri.P.Sreekumar on the afore lines, the assertion of the petitioners, that there is a specific mandate from the 2^nd respondent – PCI, permitting the 2^nd petitioner to continue until the age of 70 cannot be taken lightly. This is because, the singular argument of the learned Senior Counsel is that, as per the PCI, they follow the applicable Regulations of the University Grants Commission (UGC); and therefore, that same covers the aspect of retirement age of the 2^nd petitioner also. In other words, the assertion of the petitioners is that Regulations of the UGC would cover the field, under which the age of superannuation of the Principals is seventy.

¶25

W.P. (C) No.101 of of 2023

¶26

¶27

I, therefore, am of the firm view that the matter

¶28

will require to be heard and adjudicated by the competent Authority of the KUHS, since it requires an assessment of various factual and documentary inputs.

¶29

Resultantly, I allow this Writ Petition and direct the competent Authority of the University to hear the petitioners and advert to all their contentions, leading to a decision on their claim for continuance of the 2^nd petitioner until the age of 70, de hors Ext.P5; thus culminating in an appropriate order and necessary action thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶30

Needless to say, until such time as the afore exercise is completed and the resultant order communicated to the petitioners, status quo as of today will continue, which is to say that if the 2^nd petitioner is still serving, he will be allowed to do so.

¶31

Sd/-DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶32

lsn

¶33

W.P. (C) No.101 of of 2023

¶34

¶35

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 101/2023

¶36

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶37

Exhibit-P1	TRUE (RT)N 2021	COPY OF THE O.5382/2021/ ISSUED BY TH	ORDER G.O. GEDN DATED 24-11- E GOVERNMENT
Exhibit-P2	TRUE ISSUE	COPY OF THE D BY THE 1ST	ORDER DATED 4-10-2018 RESPONDENT.
Exhibit-P3	COPY ISSUE KERAL	OF THE ORDER D BY THE VIC A UNIVERSITY	DATED 18-10-2022 E CHANCELLOR OF OF HEALTH SCIENCES.
Exhibit-P4	TRUE 2018	COPY OF THE ISSUED BY TH	ORDER DATED 14-11- E 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit-P5	TRUE 2021	COPY OF THE ISSUED BY TH	CIRCULAR DATED 10-8- E 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit-P6	TRUE 10-10	COPY OF THE -2022 TO THE	REPRESENTATION DATED 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit-P7	TRUE ISSUE	COPY OF THE D FROM THE 1	ORDER DATED 9-11-2022 ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit-P8	TRUE 2022	COPY OF THE ISSUED BY TH	CIRCULAR DATED 8-8- E 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit-P9	TRUE 11-11 INDIA	COPY OF THE -2014 BY THE .	NOTIFICATION DATED PHARMACY COUNCIL OF

¶38

RESPONDENT S EXHIBITS: NIL

¶39

TRUE COPY

¶40

P.A TO JUDGE

¶41

LSN

The Chief Executive Trustee v. Kerala University of Health Sciences

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Chief Executive Trustee v. Kerala University of Health Sciences

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Homers Allenbe Lal Vs University of Kerala

Dr.Usha Narayana Pillai Vs the Board of Management

V.S. Saji Vs State of Kerala

Radhakrishnan K Vs the State of Kerala

S.V. Sudheer Vs Ishitha Roy

Athira Raju Vs the Registrar of Co-Operative Societies