IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 11569 of 2008(B)
1. DR.A.M.MURALEEDHARAN, PRINCIPAL, S.E.S.
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS
... Respondent
2. KANNUR UNIVERSITY, MANGATTUPARAMBA,
3. THE MANAGER, S.E.S.COLLEGE,
For Petitioner :SRI.M.A.FIROZ
For Respondent :SRI.M.SASEENDRAN,SC,KANNUR UNIVERSITY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :03/03/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
--------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) NO.11569 OF 2008 (B)
--------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 3rd day of March, 2010
J U D G M E N T
Prayer sought in the writ petition is to quash Ext.P14 order
passed by the Kannur University declining to approve the
appointment of the petitioner as Principal of the 3rd respondent
college on deputation basis.
2. Petitioner was working as Lecturer in Zamorin’s
Guruvayurappan College under the Kozhikode University. By Ext.P3
dated 17.10.2006, the 3rd respondent requested the first
respondent to sanction the appointment of the petitioner as its
Principal for a period of 6 months on deputation basis. It is seen
that by Ext.P6 dated 14.2.2006. Kannur University also conveyed its
non objection for the appointment of the petitioner on deputation
basis as the Principal of the 3rd respondent college. Based on
Exts.P3 and P6, the Government issued Ext.P2 dated 28.4.2007,
according sanction for the deputation of the petitioner, as Principal
of the 3rd respondent college for a period of 6 months. Accordingly
petitioner assumed charges as Principal.
WPC.No. 11569/08
:2 :
3. While so Government issued Ext.P9 order dated 11.5.2007
withdrawing Ext.P2 order sanctioning appointment of the petitioner
on deputation basis. Petitioner challenged Ext.P9 order before this
Court by filing Writ petition No.15378/2007. That writ petition was
admitted and by Ext.P10 order dated 18.5.2007, Ext.P9 order,
which was marked as Ext.P8 therein, was stayed for a period of one
month. Subsequently, by Ext.P11 order the stay of Ext.P9 already
granted was extended by a further period of 2 months, The stay
order was extended thereafter. Accordingly petitioner continued
as Principal of the College. The writ petition came up for final
hearing on 13.11.2007 and taking into account the fact that the
period of deputation granted to the petitioner expired on 8.11.2007
during which the order of stay continued in force, the writ petition
was closed as infructuous. A copy of the judgment is Ext.P12.
4. In the meanwhile, by Ext.P13 dated 24.10.2007, the 3rd
respondent appointed the petitioner as Principal on regular basis.
On the appointment of the petitioner on deputation basis, approval
of his appointment was sought from the University. The Syndicate
considered the matter and resolved not to approve the appointment
of the petitioner on deputation basis. This was conveyed to the
petitioner by Ext.P14 order dated 2.11.2007. It is challenging
WPC.No. 11569/08
:3 :
Ext.P14 that this writ petition is filed.
5. The case of the petitioner is that on the basis of the
deputation, he assumed charged as Principal and continued as
such for the entire period. According to him, although by Ext.P9, the
deputation was withdrawn, in view of the orders passed by this
court he discharged the duties of the post of Principal and
therefore is entitled to have the appointment approved by the
University.
6. The University has filed a counter affidavit. The main
contention raised by the University is that although Ext.P9 order was
challenged in WP(c).No.15378/07, since the writ petition was
disposed of as infructuous by Ext.P10 judgment, Ext.P9 order was
not interfered by this court. It is stated that since by Ext.P9 the
deputation was withdrawn and as the said order was not interfered
with, the University is justified in not approving the appointment of
the petitioner.
7. I have considered the submissions made. In my view, the
University has approached the issue in a very technical manner.
Admittedly, on the basis of the orders issued by the 3rd respondent
College, University and the Government, petitioner assumed charge
as Principal and discharged duties for the entire period of
WPC.No. 11569/08
:4 :
deputation. It was in the meanwhile that Ext.P9 order was issued.
Immediately thereafter petitioner challenged Ext.P9 order and the
order was stayed by this court. The stay order continued until the
writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P12 judgment. Therefore,
although technically speaking this court did not quash the order,
the fact is that implementation of the order was kept in abeyance
for the entire period of deputation. If that be so, for all practical
purposes, his assumption of charge and discharging of duty as
Principal has to be recognized as regular and on that basis
approval of the appointment ought to have been considered by
the University. If so considered, there is no reason for the
University to decline the approval as it has done by Ext.P14.
Therefore, in my view Ext.P14 cannot be sustained.
Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of directing the University
to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Principal of the 3rd
respondent college on deputation basis for the period from
10.5.2007 to 24.10.2007.
(ANTONY DOMINIC)
JUDGE
vi/
WPC.No. 11569/08
:5 :