IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 18778 of 2007(I)
1. DR.RAJAN VARGHESE, READER AND HEAD OF
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA REPRESENTED
... Respondent
2. THE MANAGEMENT OF MALANKARA SYRIAN
3. REV.FR.M.G.MATHEW, THE PRINCIPAL IN
4. THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,
5. THE MAR IVANIOUS COLLEGE,
For Petitioner :SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON
For Respondent :SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
Dated :12/07/2007
O R D E R
A.K.BASHEER, J.
-------------------------------------------
W.P.(C)No.18778 OF 2007
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 12th day of July, 2007
JUDGMENT
In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for
the parties at the Bar, particularly the request made by
learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner will be
satisfied, if a direction is issued to the Vice Chancellor of the
first respondent/University to take a decision on Ext.P4
representation, I am satisfied that this writ petition can be
disposed of without referring to the rival contentions of the
parties in detail.
2. Petitioner who is stated to be working as Reader in
the Department of Commerce and Tourism in Mar Ivanios
College has impugned Ext.P2 order of appointment of
respondent no.3 as Drawing and Disbursing Officer. It is
contended by him that so long as the appointment of
respondent no.3 as Principal of the College has not been
approved by the University, he cannot be allowed to function
as Drawing and Disbursing Officer.
W.P.(C)No.18778 OF 2007
:: 2 ::
3. However it is contended on behalf of respondents 2,
3 and 5 that the contentions raised by the petitioner are
wholly untenable. It is submitted by the learned counsel that
their lordships of the Supreme Court in Secretary,
Malankara Syrian Catholic College v. T. Jose (2007 (1)
SCC 386) had held that 5th respondent college is a minority
institution. The said decision of their lordships was followed
by the Tribunal in Ext.R2(3) order passed by the Kerala
University Appellate Tribunal. The above appeal was filed by
the petitioner. The contention of these respondents is that
since the institution has been accorded minority status, it is
the right of the management to choose a competent teacher of
its choice as the Drawing and Disbursing Officer.
4. Anyhow, I do not deem it necessary to deal with the
various contentions raised by the parties, in view of the
limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner at
the Bar. He prays that the Vice Chancellor may be directed to
take a decision on Ext.P4.
W.P.(C)No.18778 OF 2007
:: 3 ::
5. The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the
Vice Chancellor of the Kerala University, who is impleaded as
additional respondent no.6, to take a decision on Ext.P4
strictly on its merit and in accordance with law as
expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from
the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Needless to
mention that respondent no.6 shall ensure that the petitioner
and respondents 2, 3 and 5 are afforded sufficient opportunity
to be heard before taking a decision in the matter. It will be
open to respondents 2, 3 and 5 to draw the attention of the
Vice Chancellor to the judgment of the Supreme Court
referred to above. Petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ
petition along with a certified copy of the judgment before the
respondent no.6 for compliance.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE
jes