IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 27451 of 2009(B)
1. PRINCIPAL, BISHOP MOORE COLLEGE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE
4. THE REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW
For Respondent :SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :26/11/2010
O R D E R
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J.
-------------------------------------
W.P.(C)No.27451 Of 2009
-----------------------------------------------------
DATED THIS THE 26th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2010
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is the Principal of Bishop Moore College,
Mavelikkara. The issue is regarding the filling up of sanctioned
strength of the post of Lecturer in the Economics Department.
Exhibit P9 is the order passed by the Government wherein the
view taken is that the request for one more post in Economics
and Chemistry cannot be considered and the same is rejected.
2. The petitioner’s case is that going by the work load
assessment and fixation of staff strength of teaching staff for the
year 2008-09 approved by the University as per Exhibit P2, three
teachers have been permitted for the Economics Department and
thereafter the petitioner moved the Government for concurrence
for permanent appointment showing one retirement vacancy in
Economics along with the vacancies in other Departments.
Exhibit P4 is the order passed by the Government lifting the ban
of appointment of teachers in aided Colleges and granting
permission for filling up of vacancies. Therein, the petitioner’s
College was not included. This led to the petitioner filing another
W.P.(C)No.27451/09 -2-
representation pursuant to which the Government passed an
order as per Exhibit P6. Therein the permission was only for
filling up two vacancies in Physics, one vacancy in Zoology, one
vacancy of Mechanic and one vacancy of Herbarium Keeper. The
petitioner submitted Exhibit P7 representation claiming one more
post in Economics Department by claiming 40 hours of work load
in the Department. This Court by Exhibit P8 directed the
Government to take a fresh decision, pursuant to which Exhibit
P9 decision was taken.
3. In Exhibit P9, the view taken mainly is that in the staff
fixation statement placed before the High Level Committee, work
load of the Economics Department is shown as 34 hours due to
the reason that six hours work load for Statistics Paper for
B.A.Economics is allotted to Statistics Department. The
argument of the Principal-petitioner that the work load has to be
calculated in terms of the provisions of the University Ordinance
by reckoning the work load of Statistics along with Economics
was not accepted.
4. The petitioner contends that as far as the said six
hours are concerned, the paper Quantitative Methods for
W.P.(C)No.27451/09 -3-
Economic Analysis is taught by the teachers in Economics
Department itself and it cannot therefore be reckoned for the
purpose of Statistics Department. As far as Statistics
Department is concerned, one post of Lecturer has been
sanctioned and there are nine hours of work load for that
Department. In this context, the petitioner relies upon the
decision of the Board of Studies of the University taken on
21.10.1995. Therein, the Board of Studies was of the view that
at present there are no Statistics paper as such and therefore
Statistics teachers have no claim and the Board requested the
University to give necessary direction to the Principals of
Colleges that Quantitative Methods for Economic Analysis should
be taught only by Economics Teachers. Apart from that, the
learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Santhosh Mathew
submitted that it was for the University to finalise the work load
assessment based on the requirement of the College and going
by Exhibit P2, it can be seen that as far as Economics
Department is concerned, considering the working hours as 40,
three posts of Lecturers in Economics have been sanctioned by
the University. Further it is pointed out that the Government is
W.P.(C)No.27451/09 -4-
bound by the said proceedings taken by the University especially
in the light of the Division Bench decision of this Court in State
of Kerala v. Dr.Sina (2007(3) KLT 96).
5. There cannot be any dispute that it is upto the
University to fix the work load while sanctioning the staff
strength. The legal position that is declared by the Division
Bench in Dr.Sina’s case (supra) is available in paragraph 10,
which shows the following:
“10. Scope of S.57(2) of the Kerala University Act has to
be tested in the light of the above mentioned statutory
provisions. Power of the University in granting approval as
well as sanctioning posts after ascertaining the workload
and fixation of staff pattern as per the Statutes has not
been taken away by the University Amendment Act 2 of
2005. Clear cut provisions have been made in the
University Statutes and Ordinances as to how the workload
has to be assessed and staff strength fixed so as to avoid
unnecessary appointments. Further, the interest of the
students is also to be safeguarded by appointing sufficient
number of teachers without delay. Power is also conferred
on the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education to take up
the matter with the University in case there is any doubt
with the approval granted. In appropriate cases
Government can also examine the action taken by the
Deputy Director and address the University through him.”
W.P.(C)No.27451/09 -5-
6. Herein, the stand of the University is also evident from
the proceedings Exhibit P2. The method adopted herein by the
High Level Committee appears to be not to reckon the six hours
along with 34 hours of Economics and by reckoning them with
the Statistics Department. The said reason has resulted in
passing Exhibit P9.
7. Evidently, the proceedings of the University have not
been considered by the Government. Therefore, Exhibit P9 is
quashed. There will be a direction to the Government to
reconsider the matter in the light of Exhibit P2. The Government
will reconsider the matter after hearing the petitioner and the
petitioner will produce the document, namely, Exhibit P2 before
the Government which will be duly considered and appropriate
decision will be taken within a period of two months from the
date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-(T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE)
dsn