IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 2385 of 2009()
1. DR. P.V.MADHUSUDHANAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. DR. K.G.BEENA,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
3. UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, REPRESENTED BY
4. THE MANAGER,
5. V.S.SUDHA GOPALAN, S/O. V.G.SUKUMARAN,
For Petitioner :SRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN
For Respondent :SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J.
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN
Dated :22/12/2009
O R D E R
K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ.
------------------------------
W.A.No.2385 of 2009
------------------------------
Dated this, the 22nd day of December, 2009
JUDGMENT
Balakrishnan Nair, J.
The appellant was not a party to the Writ Petition.
He sought and obtained leave of this Court and preferred this
appeal. The appellant is working as a tutor in the Department
of Kaumarabhrutyam. If a post of lecturer is sanctioned in
that Department, he is entitled to get promotion. But, in view
of the direction issued by the learned Single Judge, the
appellant submits, the first respondent herein will be
accommodated in that post. To that extent, he is aggrieved
by the judgment under appeal. Therefore, he was constrained
to file this appeal.
2. The brief facts of the Writ Petition filed by the
first respondent are the following:
The first respondent submitted that she joined as
W.A. No.2385 of 2009
– 2 –
tutor in the Vaidyaratnam P.S.Warrier Ayurveda College,
Kottakal on 16.8.1991. Ext.P1 is the order appointing her,
which was to take effect from19.8.1991. Later, one
Kirathamoorthy, working in the Vaidyaratnam Ayurveda
College, Thaikkattussery, Thrissur and the first respondent
were mutually transferred on the strength of Ext.P2 order of
the Government dated 3.11.1994, permitting such transfer.
The transfer was ordered to be subject to the approval of the
University. It is common ground that the said transfer has
been approved by the University. The proceedings of the
University in this regard is Annexure 3. When the 13+1
departmental system was introduced in the College, the
Principal forwarded a proposal for one post of Lecturer in
Kaumarabhrutyam and allotment of the first respondent/
petitioner to that post, taking note of her option. That
proposal was provisionally approved by the University as per
Ext.P11. Later, the University by Ext.P12 order took the view
that the first respondent not being a post graduate in
Kaumarabhrutyam, is not entitled to be accommodated in the
W.A. No.2385 of 2009
– 3 –
Kaumarabhrutyam Department. At present, she is working in
the Department of Rachana Sareeram and her P.G. degree is
in Salyathantram. Feeling aggrieved by Ext.P12 and seeking
to quash that order and also praying for consequential reliefs,
the Writ Petition was filed. The learned Single Judge, after
hearing both sides, did not quash Ext.P12, but the substantial
relief sought by her was granted by directing to accommodate
her in the post of lecturer in the Department of
Kaumarabhrutyam, as and when 13+1 departmental system
is implemented in the 4th respondent’s college, pursuant to the
direction of this Court in W.P.(C) No.20956 of 2006.
3. According to the appellant, the first respondent
is not qualified to be appointed in the Department of
Kaumarabhrutyam. If such an unqualified hand is brought in,
that will block his promotion chances. So, as mentioned
earlier, this appeal was filed by him.
4. We heard the learned counsel on both sides. It
W.A. No.2385 of 2009
– 4 –
is not in dispute that the first respondent does not have P.G.
Degree in Kaumarabhrutyam. But, the first respondent
would submit, relying on Ext.P5 that, since she joined service
on 16.8.1991, which is admittedly before 14.5.1992, that is
before the cut off date contained in Ext.P2, she should be
treated as qualified. But, the appellant would point out that
the first respondent commenced service in the Vaidyaratnam
Ayurveda College, Ollur only on 8.11.1994 and therefore, she
cannot claim the benefit of Ext.P5. We think, it is a matter
which requires decision by the second respondent, University.
In view of the above position, we quash Ext.P12. The parties
to this appeal, who want to file representations, may file
representations before the University, concerning the above
point within six weeks from today, along with a copy of this
judgment. Upon receipt of those representations, the
University shall take a fresh decision on the claim of the first
respondent/writ petitioner for accommodation in the post of
Lecturer in Kaumarabhrutyam, that may be created while
implementing 13+1 departmental system. The University
W.A. No.2385 of 2009
– 5 –
shall take a decision within three months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment either from the appellant or
the respondents.
The judgment under appeal is modified and the
Writ Appeal is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
K. Balakrishnan Nair,
Judge.
Sd/-
P. Bhavadasan,
Judge.
DK.
(True copy)