High Court Kerala High Court

Ac.Sreehari vs The Dy.Director on 9 July, 2007

Kerala High Court
Ac.Sreehari vs The Dy.Director on 9 July, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

OP No. 19897 of 1998(R)



1. AC.SREEHARI
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs

1. THE DY.DIRECTOR,COLLEGIATE EDUCATION
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED

                For Respondent  :SRI.P.J.MATHEW, SC, KANNUR UTY.

The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN

 Dated :09/07/2007

 O R D E R
            THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
                   -------------------------------------------
                       O.P.No.19897 OF 1998
                  -------------------------------------------
                Dated this the 9th day of July, 2007


                              JUDGMENT

As per Ext.P4 order dated 14.10.1996, the petitioner was

appointed in a college as Junior Lecturer (Pre-degree). The issue

arising for decision is as to whether the petitioner was entitled to

be appointed as a Junior Lecturer with effect from 14.10.1996.

This issue, as of now, is relevant for the purpose of determining

whether his service on the basis of that appointment order is to

be approved and regularised, so that he would get emoluments

and increments as also whether such period is also to be counted

to determine his total length of service, since he has, thereafter,

been deployed to the Higher Secondary Section of a school in

implementation of the UGC norms.

2. The case of the petitioner is that one Jagannatha Pai, who

was a UGC Lecturer, proceeded on leave preparatory to

retirement resulting in Sri.V.V.Balakrishnan, until then a Junior

Lecturer, being appointed as UGC Lecturer and that the

OP.19897/98

Page numbers

petitioner was appointed in the resultant vacancy. It appears

that in the mean while, the 6th respondent was appointed and the

question is as to whether it is the 6th respondent or the petitioner

who would continue.

3. The Management, with the counter affidavit of the

Principal, appears to take the stand that the appointment of the

petitioner was as Junior Lecturer on the basis of his rank in the

select list prepared by the Staff Selection Committee and his

appointment was against a sanctioned post and is liable to be

approved. It is also the contention of the Management that the

college has four groups for Pre-degree and 12 Degree courses,

including B.A. and on an aggregate, there are 260 hours for

teaching English and 17 posts of Lecturers in English, including

Junior Lecturers. According to the Management, two teachers

viz., C.Jagannatha Pai and A.Syamala, retired on attaining the

age of superannuation on 31.3.1997 and that the said Jagannatha

Pai, who was the Selection Grade Lecturer, had entered leave

preparatory to retirement with effect from 14.10.1996. The

OP.19897/98

Page numbers

Management thus stand by the appointment made and contends

that there is no irregularity in the appointment, having regard to

the sanctioned staff strength. It is the case of the Management

that English being taught in all groups of Pre-degree classes and

in the first and second year degree classes and because the

college has an English Main degree course also, all the 17 posts

have to manned at all times in order to enable lectures being

imparted in all the English classes. The Management holds out

Ext.R2(a) staff pattern for the relevant year to contend that there

are only 17 teachers working against the 17 sanctioned posts

and there is no irregularity whatsoever in the appointment made.

Under such circumstances, the impugned decisions have to be

re-considered and such re-consideration has necessarily to follow

from the University in the first instance.

4. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned decisions are

quashed and it is directed that the competent authority in the

University will afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner

and the Management, as also to the 6th respondent, and finally

OP.19897/98

Page numbers

decide on the issue of approving the appointment of the

petitioner as per Ext.P4, having regard to Ext.R2(a). A final

decision as aforesaid shall be taken within an outer limit of four

months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The

State Government authorities will follow the decision of the

University in the matter of conferring benefits, if any, in

accordance with law.

The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions.

Sd/-

THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN,
Judge
kkb.

OP.19897/98

Page numbers

=======================

THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J

O.P.NO.19897 OF 1998

JUDGMENT

9TH JULY, 2007.

=======================