High Court Kerala High Court

O.V.Usha vs The Mahatma Gandhi University on 12 April, 2007

Kerala High Court
O.V.Usha vs The Mahatma Gandhi University on 12 April, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WA No. 1024 of 2007()


1. O.V.USHA,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE SYNDICATE OF THE MAHATMA GANDHI

3. THE VICE-CHANCELLOR,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.BABU VARGHESE

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :12/04/2007

 O R D E R
                P.R.RAMAN & ANTONY DOMINIC, JJ.

               ========================

                         W.A.NO. 1024 OF 2007

                 ======================

              Dated this the 12th day of April, 2007


                             J U D G M E N T

Raman, J.

The appellant is the petitioner in the writ petition. The

question that arises for consideration is as to whether the

appellant was holding a teacher’s post and whether the

retirement age of the appellant is 60 years instead of 55 years,

which is applicable for non teaching staff. The petitioner was

holding the post of Director, Printing and Publishing Department,

Mahatma Gandhi University. That Department was established

sometimes in 1988 March. The University also accorded sanction

for starting a Post Graduate Diploma Course in Printing and

Publishing in the Department of Printing and Publishing of the

University from 1988-89, as per Ext.P2 produced in the case.

2. According to the petitioner, after the introduction of

the Post Graduate Diploma Course in the said Department, she

has been in charge of the Department and was teaching the

students for Post Graduate Diploma course. However,

WA 1024/2007

: 2 :

subsequently in 1992, the Post Graduate Diploma course was

discontinued. According to the petitioner, she was selected by a

Committee constituted as per Chapter 3 of the University Statute

as in the case of Professors and other teachers and according to

her this is also a Department of Research and Studies

enumerated in Chapter 42 of the Statute. She also place reliance

on Annexure A1 to show that in the case of Programme

Coordinator, a similar dispute arose, which was directed to be

resolved by the Vice Chancellor and various parameters with

reference to which the issue was examined and finally it was

decided that Programme Coordinators post is a teaching post.

Annexure A2 is an order implementing Annexure A1, whereby the

Programme Coordinator was allowed to continue upto the age of

60 years. Annexures A1 and A2 were produced at the appellate

stage. The age of retirement of the petitioner was held to be 55

years by the University which was subject matter of challenge in

the writ petition. Learned Single Judge found that in the absence

WA 1024/2007

: 3 :

of materials to show that the appellant/petitioner was imparting

instructions or supervising research and hence a teacher as

defined in Section 2(29) of the Act, no relief could be granted.

Therefore, there is no occasion for this Court to consider the

various aspects which were considered while Annexure A1

decision was taken. The question ultimately as to whether the

post held by the petitioner has to be treated as a teaching post or

not will depend on variety of factors as evidenced by Annexure A1

itself. Therefore, in these circumstances, we feel that it is only

appropriate that the petitioner may file a detailed representation

with supporting materials before the Vice Chancellor of the

Mahatma Gandhi University, the 3rd respondent herein, who after

affording an opportunity to the petitioner for being heard, shall

take a final decision in the matter.

3. In the view we have taken, necessarily, we will have to

vacate the finding of the learned Single Judge on merits. It will be

open to the Vice Chancellor to take an independent decision of

WA 1024/2007

: 4 :

the matter and communicate the order to the petitioner. Such

decision shall be taken as expeditiously as possible, at any rate

within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the

representation. The representation shall be submitted within two

weeks from today.

Writ appeal is disposed of as above.

P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE.

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE.

Rp