Responsive image

Dr.K.K. Jose vs Mahathma Gandhi University on 24 September, 2008

Kerala High Court
Dr.K.K. Jose vs Mahathma Gandhi University on 24 September, 2008




WP(C).No. 17311 of 2008(J)

                      ...  Petitioner


                       ...       Respondent


                For Petitioner  :SRI.BABY ISSAC ILLICKAL

                For Respondent  :SRI. T.A. SHAJI, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :24/09/2008

 O R D E R
                     ANTONY DOMINIC, J

         Dated this the 24th day of September, 2008


Petitioner was working as a Selection Grade Lecturer in

St. Thomas college, Pala. While working so, he got himself

selected as the Director of Student Service of the first

respondent University and by Ext.P1 order he was

appointed. According to the petitioner, subsequently on

receipt of Ext.P2, he realized that the University does not

consider the post as a teaching post and therefore he sought

to be relieved from the service of the University.

Subsequently, by Ext.P5, he was ordered to be relieved, and

it was ordered that his lien will be retained for two years.

Thereafter the University issued Ext.P6, a revised order,

which did not provide for retention of lien unlike as

ordered in Ext.P4. It is challenging Ext.P6 to the extend that

WP(c).No.17311/08 2

lien is not retained this writ petition has been filed.

2. The University would submit that in terms of rule 16

of Part I Chapter III KSR once the petitioner has chosen to

join duty as Selection Grade Lecturer in St. Thomas College

he could not have retained lien in the University service.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised two

contentions. One is that, Ext.P6 is in violation of the

principles of natural justice, in as much as the same has

been issued without notice to the petitioner. The other

contention is that, under Rule 16 of Chapter III Part-I KSR,

he is entitled to retain lien in the University service.

4. Rule 16 of Chapter III Part-I KSR provides that;

“Unless in any case it be otherwise provided in
these rules, an officer on substantive
appointment to any permanent post acquires a
lien on that post and ceases to hold any lien;
previously acquired on any other post.”

5. Therefore if the petitioner is to have lien in the

University service, even after joining St. Thomas College,

Pala, it should be so provided in the KSR itself.

6. In this case, on the petitioner’s appointment and

declaration of successful completion of probation, he had

WP(c).No.17311/08 3

acquired lien in the University service. But however, once

the petitioner got himself relieved from the University and

joined as Selection Grade Lecturer in the St.Thomas

college, Palai, he will loose his lien in the University

service, unless the same is safeguarded by an express

provision in the KSR itself. Apart from the clause in Ext.P4

order referred to above, petitioner has no case that any of

the provisions in KSR provides for retention of his lien. If

that be so, petitoner cannot contend that he is entitled to

have his lien retained in the University service. Therefore, I

am not satisfied that by Ext.P6 the petitioner has been

deprived of any of his legal rights.

7.By reason of Ext.P6, in the absence of any prejudice

having been caused to the petitioner, I do not also find any

merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the

petitioner that there is violation of the principles of natural

justice as well.

Writ Petition fails and is dismissed.


WP(c).No.17311/08 4

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information