High Court Kerala High Court

Dr.V.P.Satheesan Nambiar vs Prl.Secretary To Govt on 11 November, 2008

Kerala High Court
Dr.V.P.Satheesan Nambiar vs Prl.Secretary To Govt on 11 November, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

OP.No. 29637 of 2001(C)



1. DR.V.P.SATHEESAN NAMBIAR
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs

1. PRL.SECRETARY TO GOVT.
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.)

                For Respondent  :SRI.T.M.CHANDRAN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

 Dated :11/11/2008

 O R D E R
                      S.SIRI JAGAN, J
                 ==================
                   O.P.No.29637 of 2001
                 ==================
       Dated this the 11th day of November, 2008.

                      J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is a Reader in the Vaidyaratna Ayurveda

College, the 2nd respondent herein, which is a college affiliated

to the University of Calicut. The petitioner was formerly

working as a Reader in the Salyasalakia department of the

college. By Ext.P1 order the Government sanctioned two posts

of Professors in Samhita & Sidhantha Department and another

in Swasthavritha Department of the college. According to the

petitioner, perceiving better opportunity for promotion as

Professor in Samhita & Sidhantha Department he opted to be

shifted to the Samhita and Sidhantha department, which option

was accepted by the management, by Ext.P2 order dated

10.4.2000. From then on the petitioner has been working as

Reader in Samhita and Sidhantha department. According to

the petitioner, the post of Professor in Samhita and Sidhantha

department sanctioned as per Ext.P1 order was never filled up.

In spite of the repeated representations by the petitioner, the

petitioner was not given promotion although the petitioner was

fully qualified for such promotion. Therefore the petitioner

O.P.No.29637 of 2001 – 2 –

filed Ext.P6 representation before the Secretary to the

Government of Kerala. In answer to that representation by

Ext.P7, the petitioner was informed that the petitioner’s

request was rejected as there is no post of Professor vacant in

the Samhitha and Sidhantha department in the 2nd

respondent’s college. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P7

order. The contention of the petitioner is that the statement in

Ext.P7 that there is no vacancy is clearly wrong in view of

Ext.P1 order. The petitioner therefore seeks the following

reliefs:

“a) To call for the records leading upto Exhibit P7
and quash the same by the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari
or any other appropriate writ, order or direction.

b) To issue a Writ of Mandamus commanding the
respondents to immediately promote the petitioner to the
post of Professor in Samhitha & Sidhantha in the college of
the second respondent in the existing vacancy of professor,
which is unfilled and lying vacant.”

2. The 2nd respondent and the additional 3rd respondent

have filed counter affidavits controverting the averments in the

original petition. According to them, the post of professor in

Samhitha & Sidhantha department sanctioned as per Ext.P1

was filled up by promoting the additional 3rd respondent as per

Ext.R3A order dated 1.2.1999, which was approved by the

University. Subsequently in tune with the directions of the

Central Council of Indian Medicine the 2nd respondent decided

O.P.No.29637 of 2001 – 3 –

to introduce 13 department system instead of the 7 department

system prevailing in the college. On introduction of the 13

department system, options were called for from all the

employees for choosing department of their choice if eligible.

It is pursuant there to that the petitioner opted for Samhitha &

Sidhantha department. At the same time the additional 3rd

respondent, who had be promoted to the post of Professor of

Samhitha & Sidhantha department sanctioned as per Ext.P1,

opted to be shifted to Prasoothitantra department as Professor

which was sanctioned by the college. However, later on, the

Government canceled the introduction of 13 department

system in the college, since the same was without sanction

from the Government. Therefore legally the 3rd respondent

now continues only as Professor of Samhitha & Sidhantha

department, is the contention raised. As such at present there

is no vacancy of Professor in Samhitha & Sidhantha

department. According to them, as and when the 13

department system is approved for the college, then if the 3rd

respondent opts for Prasoothithantra department and 6 more

posts of Professors are sanctioned, the petitioner can aspire for

promotion to the post of Professor of Samhitha & Sidhantha

department is the contention raised.

O.P.No.29637 of 2001 – 4 –

3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail.

4. Admittedly as on today, legally the 7 department

system is the one prevailing in the 2nd respondent college and

there are only seven sanctioned posts of Professors. One of the

sanctioned post is Professor of Samhitha & Sidhantha

department. That post is occupied by the 3rd respondent. The

petitioner has no case that the petitioner is entitled to be

promoted as Professor in preference to the additional 3rd

respondent. The additional 3rd respondent is presently holding

the post of Professor of Samhitha & Sidhantha. Since there is

only one post of Professor of Samhitha & Sidhantha, the

petitioner cannot aspire to be Professor of Samhitha &

Sidhantha department. As pointed out by the counsel for the

respondents 2 and 3 as and when 13 department system is

approved for the college and additional posts of professor are

sanctioned for each department, the petitioner can aspire for

further promotion as Professor. In the above circumstances, I

do not find any merit in this original petition and accordingly,

the same is dismissed.

S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

rhs