IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 15112 of 2008(Y)
1. BIJU C.S, AGED 38 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS
... Respondent
2. M.G.UNIVERSITY, KOTTAYAM
3. THE VICE CHANCELLOR,
For Petitioner :SRI.MOHAN JACOB GEORGE
For Respondent :SRI. T.A. SHAJI, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :05/08/2008
O R D E R
K.T. SANKARAN, J.
............................................................................
W.P.(C) No. 15112 OF 2008
............................................................................
Dated this the 5th August, 2008
J U D G M E N T
The second respondent invited applications from qualified candidates for
appointment to certain teaching posts in various departments, as per Ext. P1
notification dated 05.05.2007. The petitioner submitted an application to the post of
Lecturer in English language and Literature in the Department of “School of Letters”. It
is stated that the petitioner is duly qualified to be appointed to the post and that he is a
highly meritorious candidate.
2. The grievance voiced by the petitioner is that though Ext.P1 notification was
issued, the University has not taken any steps to complete the selection process and
to make appointments. On the other hand, the University is indulging in appointing
Guest Lecturers on contract basis, it is contended. The petitioner got this information
on his request under the Right to Information Act. It is stated in the Writ Petition that
the absence of regular teachers in the University and colleges lead to degradation of
standard of education. The petitioner relies on Ext.P8 communication issued by the
Ministry of Human Resources Development to the Chief Secretary of the State, wherein
the practice of appointment of contract teachers and adhoc teachers is deprecated.
It is stated in Ext.P8 communication as follows:
“You are aware of the problem of the absence of regular
teachers in the Universities and colleges in the State sector. In
the absence of regular teachers, good Universities and colleges
are irreversibly sliding back into mediocrity and worse. It is
imperative therefore that all attempts are made to fill the posts of
teachers in the Universities and colleges in an expeditious
manner. It would be useful to start this campaign before the
W.P.(C) No. 15112 OF 2008
2next academic session beginning in July/August. “
3. It would appear that a Committee was constituted by the Syndicate of the
University to submit a report regarding various appointments to be made by the
University. The Committee submitted Ext. P12 report. It is seen from Ext.P12 report
that a notification dated 19.12.2005 was issued inviting applications to the various
posts . Though appointments were made as per the notification dated 19.12.2005, it is
stated, two posts were terminated as a consequence of court orders. Another
notification dated 11.09.2006 was issued inviting applications to fill up six posts.
Interview was held, but no posting was made due to lack of concurrence from the
Government. It is also stated in the report that the Government have granted sanction
for three posts in SMBS. With reference to Ext.P1 notification dated 05.05.2007, the
Committee suggested to scrutinize the applications received as per Ext.P1 notification
and to complete the selection procedures so as to fill up the vacant faculty posts which
is very much needed for the teaching and research programmes of the departments.
4. The relief prayed for by the petitioner is to issue a writ of mandamus or any
other appropriate writ or order commanding respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to complete the
selection process pursuant to Ext.P1 notification and to make regular appointments to
the posts notified.
5. A counter affidavit is filed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3. It is stated in
paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit that the Syndicate of the University appointed a
Committee consisting of three members of the Syndicate to examine the modalities in
proceeding with the recruitment of teachers in various departments as per notification
dated 05.05.2007. It is also stated that the Government have sanctioned three posts
out of six posts created by the University. The counter affidavit also shows that the
W.P.(C) No. 15112 OF 2008
3
Syndicate has resolved not to accept the report of the Committee .
6. It is not disputed that Ext. P1 notification was issued inviting applications
from qualified candidates for appointment to 8 teaching posts in the various
departments of the University. It cannot be disputed that these vacancies are to be
filled up. Ad hoc appointment and appointment on contract basis is not a substitute for
regular appointment. The Ministry of Human Resources Development is also of the
same view and directions have been issued in this regard as evidenced by Ext.P8.
The petitioner relies on Ext.P13 ‘ Credit and Semester System ‘ issued by Mahatma
Gandhi University which would also indicate that appointment of permanent faculty is
necessary. Ext.P13 provides for a Faculty Council consisting of all the regular and
permanent teachers of the Department/School. Evidently, ad hoc appointees and
contract appointees would not be the members of the Faculty Council.
7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the
petitioner is entitled to the reliefs prayed for in the Writ Petition. Accordingly, the Writ
Petition is allowed. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are directed to proceed with the selection
to the various posts notified as per Ext. P1 notification, as expeditiously as possible,
and at any rate within a period of three months, in accordance with the relevant statutes
of the University.
The Writ Petition is allowed as above.
K.T. SANKARAN,
JUDGE.
lk