IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 1984 of 2007(Y)
1. DR.G.S.L.H.V. PRASAD RAO,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE KERALA AGRICULTURE UNIVERSITY,
... Respondent
2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR,
3. DR. P.K.RAJEEVAN,
For Petitioner :SRI.R.RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI
For Respondent :SRI.RENJITH THAMPAN,SC,KERALA AGRL.UTY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.B.KOSHY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :22/08/2008
O R D E R
J.B.KOSHY & THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JJ.
-------------------------------
W.A.NOS.1984 & 1992 OF 2007 ()
-----------------------------------
Dated this the 27th day of August, 2008
J U D G M E N T
KOSHY,J.
The writ petitioner in W.P.(C).No.19598/2006 is the
senior most Professor in the Kerala Agricultural University.
As per Ext.P5 seniority list, his seniority number is No.2. First
one has already retired. As per Ext.P5 seniority list, the
3rd respondent is placed as No.12. Writ Petitioner in W.P.(C).
No.24221/2006 is placed as No.13. According to the writ
petitioner in W.P.(C).No.24221/2006, taking into consideration
the date of appointment, he is also senior to the
4th respondent, who is the 3rd respondent in the other writ
petition. On 10.7.2003, the writ petitioner in W.P.(C).
No.19598/2006 was placed in full additional charge of as
Associate Dean of the College of Horticulture. Since he was
not having basic qualification in Agriculture or Horticulture,
there was protest from the students and teachers. Following
W.A.1984 & 1992/07
2
the protest, he was removed and 3rd respondent was put in
charge as the Associate Dean and that was challenged before
this Court. The appointment of the 3rd respondent was set
aside as appointment cannot be made on the basis of agitation
and the University was directed to make proper appointment.
The Executive Committee’s decision was that the ‘senior most
teacher at the College of Horticulture is to be replaced the
present Associate Dean’. It is the contention of the petitioner
that the 3rd respondent, though not the senior most teacher,
he was again appointed by the Executive Committee by Ext.P5
order. Ext.P5 order shows that the senior most 20 teachers
were considered and 3rd respondent was selected. It is also
pointed out by the counsel for the University that all the
senior most teachers were considered and Executive
Committee selected the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent
possessed Masters Degree in Horticulture apart from Ph.D in
the same subject. Petitioners in both writ petitions possessed
Masters Degree in Meteorology and Agriculture and
Bio-Chemistry respectively. This aspect was considered by the
W.A.1984 & 1992/07
3
Court and held that the decision of the Executive Committee’s
to replace the petitioner cannot be faulted. What was decided
is only that the substitute should not be appointed on the basis
of agitation. Now the Executive Committee has decided to
appoint the 3rd respondent in the College of Horticulture. If
the Executive Committee’s decision that a person having
Degree in the Horticulture itself should be appointed as the
Associate Dean of the College of Horticulture, it cannot be
fault. It is argued that even though Academic Council has
proposed to amend the ordinance making it compulsory that
only the person having basic Degree in the practical subject
can be posted as the Associate Dean, it was not so far
approved by the Chancellor even though General Council has
approved the same. The matter is still pending with the
Chancellor and only Chancellor will decide when the
ordinance will come into effect. But even without the
amendment of the ordinance, the Executive Committee found
that a senior most teacher with the basic Degree in
Horticulture to be preferred to be appointed as Associate
W.A.1984 & 1992/07
4
Dean, though there is teacher who is having basic degree in
other subjects. We are not interfering with the decision of
the Executive Committee and persons without having basic
degree in the particular field should not be appointed as an
Associate Dean in the College of Horticulture. In these
circumstances, we see no ground to interfere with the
appointment of the 3rd respondent, and hence, we dismiss the
appeal.
J.B.KOSHY, JUDGE
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE
prp
J.B.KOSHY & K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JJ.
——————————————————–
M.F.A.NO. OF 2006 ()
———————————————————
J U D G M E N T
———————————————————
4th August, 2008