IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 1234 of 2009()
1. DR.C.V.THOMAS
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.B.MOHANLAL
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR
Dated :17/06/2009
O R D E R
K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ.
------------------------------
W.A. No.1234 OF 2009
-------------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of June, 2009
J U D G M E N T
~~~~~~~~~~~
Balakrishnan Nair, J.
The appellant is the writ petitioner. He was an applicant for
the post of Assistant Director, Department of Adult Continuing
and Extension Education, when the Mahatma Gandhi University
invited applications for the said post. Ext.P6 dated 23.1.2009 is
the notification issued by the Mahatma Gandhi University. Going
by Ext.P6 notification, the appellant does not have the prescribed
qualifications. He submits, he has the qualifications prescribed
for the said post by the Kerala University. By virtue of Section
99(2) of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act, 1985, the
prescription made by the Kerala University will be applicable to
the Mahatma Gandhi University also. Therefore, Ext.P6 to the
extent, it is at variance with the prescription of qualifications for
the aforementioned post made by the Kerala University, is illegal.
The learned Single Judge noted that the Statues and Ordinances
in force, when the Mahatma Gandhi University Act came into
force did not mention about the post of Assistant Director in the
W.A.No.1234/2009 2
aforementioned subject. It is not a post included in the schedule
of the Ordinances of the Kerala University. Therefore, the
prescription made by the Mahatma Gandhi University, even if, it
is not by framing an Ordinance, was held to be valid. Based on
that finding, the Writ Petition was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved
by the said decision of the learned Single Judge, this Writ Appeal
is filed.
2. The appellant raised the very same contention relying
on Section 99(2), which was rejected by the learned Single
Judge, before us also. He also submitted that the prescription of
qualifications contained in Ext.P6 is at variance with the
prescription of qualification for the said post made by the
University Grants Commission (for short ‘UGC’) in Annexure-I.
3. Section 99(2) of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act,
1985, reads as follows:
“Notwithstanding anything contained in
sub-section (1) all Statutes and Ordinances
made under the Kerala University Act, 1974
(17 of 1974) and in force on the date of the
commencement of this Act shall, in so far as
they are not inconsistent with the provisionsW.A.No.1234/2009 3
of this Act continue to be in force in respect
of the areas referred to in sub-section (1)
until they are replaced by the Statutes and
Ordinances to be made under this Act.”
4. The Statutes, Ordinances etc. in force in the area of
operation of the Mahatma Gandhi University, but transferred
from the area of the Kerala University and which are framed by
the Kerala University will continue to operate until the Mahatma
Gandhi University frames its own Statutes, Ordinances etc. As
per the Ordinance, relevant in this case, framed by the Kerala
University, there is no post of Assistant Director in the
department of Adult Continuing and Extension Education in the
Kerala University. Therefore, Section 99(2) have no application
to the facts of the case. So, we notice that the learned Single
Judge has rejected this contention validly and we find no reason
to interfere with it. The appellant has raised a new ground in
this appeal, which he has failed to raise in the writ petition, that
there is conflict between the prescription made by the UGC under
Annexure-I and the prescription made by the Mahatma Gandhi
University in Ext.P6. We notice that there is not much difference
between the qualifications prescribed by the Mahatma Gandhi
W.A.No.1234/2009 4
University for the said post and the qualifications contained in
Annexures-I and III produced along with this Writ Appeal. The
said annexures contain prescriptions of qualification made by the
UGC for the said post. Even assuming, there is some difference
in the qualification, the same will not make Ext.P6 null and void.
Such variation, if found to be substantial, will enable the UGC to
take appropriate action against Mahatma Gandhi University. We
are not inclined to accept the contention of the appellant that
Ext.P6 is at variance with Annexures-I and III and even assuming
it is at variance, the same will not make Ext.P6 a nullity.
In the result, the Writ Appeal fails and it is dismissed.
(K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE)
(C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE)
ps