IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 12504 of 2009(G)
1. MANAGER, ST.THOMAS COLLEGE, RANNI.
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,
3. MG UNIVERSITY REPRESENTED BY ITS
For Petitioner :SRI.K.B.GANGESH
For Respondent :SRI. T.A. SHAJI, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :20/10/2010
O R D E R
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J.
-------------------------------------
W.P.(C)No.12504 Of 2009
-----------------------------------------------------
DATED THIS THE 20th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2010
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is the Manager of St.Thomas College, Ranni,
which is affiliated to the 3rd respondent-University. There was a
vacancy consequent on retirement in Economics Department of
the College and the management requested to sanction the post
in the Department after computing the work load of the Statistics
Department along with the work load of Economics Department.
The Government took the view in Exhibit P1 that as per the staff
fixation submitted to the College by the Empowered Committee,
work load of Economics and Statistics papers of Economics were
shown separately and according to which there are 40 hours of
work load in Economics and six hours in Statistics. Accordingly,
the Government was of the view that as per the UGC norms,
College is eligible for two posts in Economics only. The request
of the Manager was thus rejected, which is under challenge in
this Writ Petition.
2. In the Writ Petition, the contention raised is that the
Economics Department was handling the Statistics papers from
W.P.(C)No.12504/09 -2-
1968 onwards, as there is no separate Statistics Department to
the College and the College does not offer degree or post-
graduate courses in Statistics. Thus, from 1968 onwards work
load of Economics Department in the College was assessed upon
taking into account the work load of Statistics papers in B.A.
Economics. Exhibit P2 is the true copy of the approved staff
strength of the College dated 18.12.2002 wherein the work load
of Economics Department has been assessed as 46 hours after
taking into account six hours of Statistics also. If Exhibit P2 is
accepted, then there can be three teachers in Economics
Department.
3. In the year 2007-08, only two teachers were working
in the Department of Economics. A retirement vacancy had
arisen earlier by the retirement of one Shri A.P.Kuriakose on
31.3.2006. This vacancy could not be filled up due to the ban
order issued by the Government as per Exhibit P3, which was
lifted as per order dated 23.6.2008. The petitioner, therefore
prays, that the proceedings Exhibit P1 may be quashed and a
direction may be given to the 1st respondent to grant concurrence
to the petitioner to effect appointment to the existing open
W.P.(C)No.12504/09 -3-
vacancy in the Department of Economics available in the College.
4. By interim order dated 21.5.2009, it was made clear
that the selection to the post of Lecturer in Economics can go on
as scheduled with a nominee deputed in Exhibit P1 and all
appointments will be done only after getting permission from this
Court. It was modified by another interim order dated
29.7.2009. It was directed therein that the Management is
permitted to effect appointment of Lecturer in Economics
pursuant to the selection conducted as per the direction of this
Court, which will be subject to further orders to be passed in the
Writ Petition.
5. The 1st and 2nd respondents have filed a counter
affidavit. The University has also filed a counter affidavit. The
stand taken in the counter affidavit filed by respondents 1 and 2
is that there is 40 hours of work load in Economics and six hours
in Statistics Department and as per the the UGC norms two
teachers are permissible. Apparently, this is without reckoning
the six hours for the Statistics Department. So far as the said six
hours are concerned, it is pointed out that a Guest Lecturer can
be appointed.
W.P.(C)No.12504/09 -4-
6. In the counter affidavit filed by the University it is
explained in paragraph 6 that Statistics paper alone is not only in
the Economics Department, but also in the Mathematics
Department. Hence the University can identify the existence of
any vacancy in the Department only after assessing the detailed
work load of the concerned Department as per the students’
strength of the College as on 1.1.2008 for the 2009-2010
academic year. It is also mentioned in paragraph No.6 that the
University is not in a position to identify the vacancy position at
this stage because the detailed work load of the concerned
Departments has not been assessed for the 2009-2010 academic
year.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently
contended that even in other Colleges under the University, the
very same method has been adopted for fixing the work load.
Therefore, the question to be decided is whether the six hours of
the work load of the Statistics Department should be added to
the 40 hours available in the Economics Department to justify the
appointment of the petitioner. Since the work load assessment is
yet to be take place, it will be only proper that the University
W.P.(C)No.12504/09 -5-
considers the matter after hearing the petitioner. The learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner further pointed out that
Clause 7(1)(c) of the M.G.University Ordinances is clearly
applicable to the facts of this case. The same is extracted below:
“In any case were certain papers of a
course of study are taught by teachers of
another Department (for e.g. Statistics
papers of BA/MA Economics handled by
Statistics department) such hours of work
should be included in the work load of
Department which actually teaches and
there should be consistency in the
allotment of such work every year.”
8. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the
same will apply only if two departments are there. The effect of
Clause 7(1)(c) is an important aspect for the University to
consider, while fixing the work load. Therefore, to the extent to
which Exhibit P1 disentitles the petitioner from having one more
post in Economics Department is set aside.
9. There will be a direction to the University to take a
decision in the matter after hearing the petitioner and the Deputy
Director of Collegiate Education . Appropriate decision will be
W.P.(C)No.12504/09 -6-
taken within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment. The approval of appointment made pursuant to the
interim orders will be subject to the orders to be passed by the
University.
The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.
dsn