High Court Kerala High Court

Muhammed P.K vs The Principal Secretary on 28 October, 2009

Kerala High Court
Muhammed P.K vs The Principal Secretary on 28 October, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 28871 of 2007(K)


1. MUHAMMED P.K.,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
                       ...       Respondent

2. DIRECTOR,

3. THE REGISTRAR,

4. THE MANAGER,

5. THE PRINCIPAL,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN

                For Respondent  :SRI.M.SASEENDRAN,SC,KANNUR UNIVERSITY

The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

 Dated :28/10/2009

 O R D E R
                     T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
                      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                          W.P.(C). No.28871/2007-K
                       ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                   Dated this the 28th day of October, 2009

                               J U D G M E N T

The petitioner herein is working as Librarian in Nusrathul Islam

Arabic College, a private aided college affiliated to Kannur University. The

main grievance raised in the writ petition is regarding the grant of approval

of appointment. The petitioner herein has produced Ext.P3 whereby one

post of Librarian Grade-IV was sanctioned to all 11 private Arabic Colleges

including the college in which he is now employed. Ext.P4 is the order of

appointment. The second respondent rejected the proposal as per Ext.P5

and the reasons stated therein is that Bachelor Degree in Library and

Information Science has been prescribed as minimum qualification for

filling up the post of college Librarian.

2. The petitioner contends that he is having the qualification

prescribed as per the relevant Statute, namely, Ext.P6 the Kannur University

First Statutes, 1998, wherein the qualification for Librarian Grade-IV is

S.S.L.C and Certificate in Library Science.

3. The petitioner has produced Exts.P7 to P9 to show that in

respect of Calicut University as well as in Government Service, the very

same qualification alone is prescribed and exists even now.

W.P.(C). No.28871/2007
-:2:-

4. The issue turns up on interpretation of Ext.P1. Ext.P1

prescribes the staff pattern of non-teaching staff in Private Arts and Science

Colleges and Arabic Colleges by way of revision of the existing pattern. In

paragraph (3) it is recorded as follows:-

“3. All Universities will propose necessary

amendments to their Statutes regarding the service

conditions of Non teaching staff in Private Colleges, in

tune with the revised work norms and staff pattern.”

5. It is true that the Government has proposed a different

qualification from the existing one governed by Ext.P6 Statutes. But the

admitted position is that no amendment has been effected to the Statutes so

far. It is explained by the learned Standing Counsel for the University also

that so far no amendments have been effected to the First Statutes. In the

counter affidavit filed on behalf of the second respondent, the only

averment is that all the Universities in Kerala have been instructed to

propose necessary amendments in the Statute in accordance with the

government order.

6. Therefore, going by the First Statutes, namely, Ext.P6, the

petitioner’s qualification is sufficient.

W.P.(C). No.28871/2007
-:3:-

7. It is well settled that an executive order will not override the

Act, Rules or Regulations in force. Herein, the First Statute has been

framed in terms of Section 100(1) of the Kannur University Act, 1995 by

the Government. Therefore, the said statutory prescriptions, in terms of the

relevant First Statutes, cannot be overriden by an executive order issued by

the Government.

8. Since the above legal position is well settled, the stand taken by

the Government that the qualification prescribed as per Ext.P1 will govern

the appointment of persons like the petitioner cannot be accepted.

9. In that view of the matter, the objection that the petitioner is not

qualified cannot be sustained. Therefore, Ext.P5 order is quashed. There

will be a direction to the second respondent to approve the appointment of

the petitioner and disburse the consequential monetary benefits like salary

and allowances including arrears. Appropriate orders in this regard will be

passed within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this

judgment.

The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs.

(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)
ms