IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 2204 of 2008()
1. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED
... Petitioner
2. SYNDICATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON
Vs
1. DR.USHAMANI.M., D/O.LATE R.N.PANICKER,
... Respondent
2. DR.ANU GOPINATH, D/O.SRI.K.P.GOPINATH,
3. SHILPA JOSE, D/O.SRI. JOSE THOMAS,
4. DHANYA.N., D/O.SRI.K.NARAYANAN, AGED 30
5. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS
6. DIRECTORATE OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,
7. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE,
8. MANAGER, CONGREGATION OF CARMALITE
For Petitioner :SRI. T.A. SHAJI, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.B.KOSHY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :17/11/2008
O R D E R
J.B. Koshy & Thomas P.Joseph, JJ.
————————————–
W.A. Nos.2204, 2219 & 2220 of 2008
—————————————
Dated this the 17th day of November, 2008
Judgment
Koshy,J.
Some of the teachers as well as the management
approached this court as the appointment of the teachers were not
approved from the date of their appointments and salary was not
paid. On the basis of the contentions, files were called for and it
was found that they were appointed in the sanctioned posts against
existing vacancies. It was also found that those teachers were
academically fully qualified. These are all private aided colleges
and appointments are to be made by the college management on
the recommendation of a selection committee constituted as per
Rules. Contention of the university was that manager did not
consider all the applications while selecting the teachers. In
paragraph 20 of the judgment, the learned single Judge considered
the matter as follows:
“20. When the available vacancies are
few, and the number of applicants is large, it is
always open to the management to restrict the
zone of consideration, subject to any minimumW.A. Nos. 2204, 2219 & 2220/2008 2
prescribed in the rules. If there is no such
prescription, management need only ensure the
availability of reasonable number of candidates
as against the number of vacancies that are to
be filled up following a reasonable criteria. This
right of the management, to shortlist the
candidates cannot be doubted, so long as the
criteria adopted is fair and reasonable in the
light of the judgments in Union of India and
another v. T. Sundararaman and others ((1997)
4 SCC 664), Madhya Pradesh Public Service
Commission v. Navnit Kumar Potdar and another
((1994) 6 SCC 293) and Jayakumar v. High Court
of Kerala (2001 (2) KLT 924). Therefore, I
cannot accept the plea of the University that the
Management was incompetent to short list
candidates. The further question is whether
there was sufficient number of short listed
candidates for selection. University has not
raised such an argument and therefore it is not
necessary for me to consider that issue.”
The selection committee was constituted correctly and the
contention that at least three persons should have been called for
each post was also considered in paragraph 23 of the judgment as
follows:
“23. A reading of Statute 3 (1) shows that
in order to ensure that appointment of teachers
by direct recruitment are on the basis of merit,
such appointments shall be made from a panel
of three names for every vacancy recommended
by a selection committee constituted in the
manner provided therein. However, statute 3
(3) provides that notwithstanding statute 3 (1) in
the case of an educational agency which has
entered into direct payment agreement,W.A. Nos. 2204, 2219 & 2220/2008 3
appointment of teachers shall be made from a
list of persons prepared by a selection
committee constituted in the manner provided
therein. Constitution of the Selection Committee
in so far as per Statutes 3 (1) and 3 (3) are also
different. University has no case that the
college has not entered into direct payment
agreement. If that be so, what is relevant is
statute 3 (3) and unlike statute 3 (1), statute 3
(3) does not prescribe the requirement of a
panel of three names, but only provides that
appointment of teachers shall be made only
from a list of persons prepared by a selection
committee. Therefore, as far as the college is
concerned, it is governed by statute 3 (3) and
there is no requirement of a panel of three
names for every vacancy. I do not find any
substance in the plea of the University that
statute 3 (3) of Chapter 45B is subject to statute
3 (1), since such an interpretation is against the
plain terms of the statute itself. Hence, the 2nd
reason assigned in Ext.P16 is also
unacceptable.”
These two objections were raised by the University and they were
found unsustainable by the Court. Individual cases were considered
by the learned Judge in detail and allowed the writ petitions and
directed the respondents in the writ petition to disburse their pay
and allowances with full service benefits from the date of their due
appointment. Since teachers were selected by a duly appointed
selection committee as per the Rules and they were fully qualified
and appointments were made to the sanctioned vacancies, we fully
W.A. Nos. 2204, 2219 & 2220/2008 4
agree with the views of the learned single Judge and since we fully
agree with the views, we are not reiterating the views. All the
appeals are dismissed.
J.B.Koshy
Judge
Thomas P. Joseph
Judge
vaa
W.A. Nos. 2204, 2219 & 2220/2008 5
J.B. KOSHY
AND
THOMAS P.JOSEPH,JJ.
————————————-
W.A.Nos.2204, 2219 &
2220/2008
————————————-
Judgment
Date:17th November,2008