IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 23431 of 2006(M)
1. DR.K.P.RAJAPPAN NAIR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND
... Respondent
2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR,
3. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS,
4. DR.V.UNNIKRISHNAN NAIR,
For Petitioner :SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR
For Respondent :SRI.SURIN GEORGE IYPE,SC,CUSAT,COCHIN U
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :20/02/2009
O R D E R
P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.
----------------------------------------------
W.P(C) No.23431 of 2006-M
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 20th February, 2009.
J U D G M E N T
Heard Sri.Pirappancode V.S.Sudheer, the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Surin George Iype, the learned
standing counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3.
2. The petitioner was nominated by the Vice Chancellor,
Cochin University of Science and Technology as Dean of the Faculty
of Science as per notification dated 19.4.2004. Later by Exhibit P2
notification dated 5.4.2005, the petitioner’s nomination was
revoked. He challenged it in W.P(C)No.14701 of 2005 contending
that the cancellation of his nomination is malafide. By Exhibit P6
judgment delivered on 27.9.2005, a learned Single Judge of this
Court quashed Exhibit P2 and directed the Vice Chancellor of the
University to take a fresh decision in the matter after affording the
petitioner an opportunity of being heard. Dissatisfied with Exhibit
P6, the petitioner filed a Writ Appeal. The Division Bench of this
Court by Exhibit P7 judgment dismissed the Writ Appeal. Later the
Vice Chancellor issued Exhibit P8 notice setting out the reasons
W.P(C) No.23431 of 2006-M 2
which prompted him to issue Exhibit P2. The petitioner was called
upon to submit a reply. The petitioner submitted Exhibits P9 and
P10 replies. Thereafter the Vice Chancellor issued Exhibit P11
notification dated 29.5.2006 holding that the petitioner’s
continuance as Dean of the Faculty of Science is not in the best
interests of the University. Exhibit P11 is under challenge in this
Writ Petition.
3. By Exhibit P1, the petitioner was nominated as Dean of
the Faculty of Science for a period of three years from 18.4.2004.
The said period of three years has expired and another person was
nominated as Dean of the Faculty of Science. Therefore no relief
can be granted to the petitioner by restoring him as Dean of the
Faculty of Science. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the observations in Exhibit P11 cast a stigma on the petitioner
and that it will adversely affect his career. The petitioner therefore
prays that the observation in Exhibit P11 that his continuance as
Dean of the Faulty of Science is not in the best interests of the
University and the student community may be deleted.
4. The learned standing counsel appearing for the
University submits that it was the petitioner who invited the said
finding by challenging Exhibit P2. On going through the pleadings
W.P(C) No.23431 of 2006-M 3
and after hearing the learned counsel appearing on either side, I am
persuaded to hold that Exhibit P2 does not cast any stigma on the
petitioner. However having regard to the fact that the petitioner has
now retired from service, I feel that the Syndicate of the University
should examine whether the observations against the petitioner in
Exhibit P9 should be vacated. I notice that the petitioner has already
submitted Exhibit P12 representation before the Registrar of the
Cochin University of Science and Technology requesting that the
findings against him in Exhibit P11 may be withdrawn. The
Registrar of the University shall within three months from today
place the original of Exhibit P12 before the Syndicate of the
University and the Syndicate shall consider the same and take a
decision as to whether the adverse findings against the petitioner in
Exhibit P11 should stand deleted or not.
The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
P.N.RAVINDRAN
JUDGE
//True Copy//
PA to Judge
ab