JOSE GOERGE Vs. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The captioned writ petitions are materially connected in respect of the appointment of one Dr. Densely Jose to the post of Principal of Mar Athanasius College, Kothamangalam and other related issues. Therefore, I heard them together and propose to pass this common judgment. The facts and documents available from W.P.(C) No. 8614 of 2016 are relied upon to dispose of the writ petitions.

(2.) Brief material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:

(3.) The 4th respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit refuting the claims and demands raised by the petitioners. The paramount contention advanced by the 4 th respondent is that the writ petition is not maintainable under law, since the petitioners have got an equally efficacious remedy before the Appellate Tribunal constituted under Section 69 of the M.G University Act, 1985 and therefore, the petitioners are liable to be relegated to the statutory remedy of appeal. That apart, it is pointed out that the petitioners and the 5th respondent are Senior Teachers working in the College from the dates specified above as Lecturers in the college. The details of the promotion given to the petitioners and the 5th respondent are also provided in the seniority list prepared by the college. The petitioners are assigned with rank Nos. 20 and 14 respectively, while the 5th respondent has been assigned rank No.16. The former Principal of College retired from service on 31.05.2015, attaining superannuation and it was thereupon that the management has appointed the 5 th respondent as Principal in charge and Drawing and Disbursing Officer in accordance with the Mahatma Gandhi University Statutes, by order dated 01.06.2015 and she has commenced functioning as the Principal in charge of the College. It is also submitted that the college cannot function without a Principal and appropriate and relevant communications were forwarded to all the authorities, including the University and the University has issued order dated 15.06.2015, according approval of the appointment of the 5th respondent as Drawing and Disbursing Officer of the College from 01.06.2005 to 31.08.2005. The Management had sought for the extension of the approval of the 5 th respondent as the Drawing and Disbursing Officer as per letter dated 31.08.2015, pursuant to which the University had issued an order dated 30.09.2015 extending the approval from 01.09.2015 to 30.11.2015. In the meanwhile, the Governing Board of the College decided to resort to direct recruitment so as to select and appoint a competent Principal and thereupon, the selection procedure has started and the petitioners and the 5th respondent applied for the post. It is also submitted that the Selection Committee was constituted consisting of the nominees of the State Government, Director of Collegiate Education and the University as well as the Management representatives. The State Government had deputed Sri. K.S. Madusoodhanan, Additional Law Secretary as its nominee on 06.08.2015. Other persons were nominated by the Director of Collegiate Education, the University as well as the Management. The claim raised by the petitioners on the basis of their academic qualifications and other credentials are disputed by the 4th respondent. That apart, it is submitted that the University has nominated its representatives to the statutory selection committee. The API score sheet/tabulation sheet of the marks of the applicants of the interviews serialled as item No.4 were also sought for. Serial No.5 was the pension papers of Dr. Leena George having absolutely no correlation with the consideration of the approval of the appointment of the Principal. Serial No.6 was the Equivalency certificate of Ph. D degree of Anna University of the 5 th respondent. That apart, it is submitted that the University had approved the promotions granted to the 5 th respondent to the cadre of Senior Grade Lecturer and Associate Professor during 2001 and 2009, and all the said documents had been scrutinized prior to the grant of approval. In sum and substance, the contention is that the selection of the 5 th respondent as Rank No.1 was in accordance with law. According to the 4th respondent, eventhough various letters were addressed to the respondents to approve the appointment of the 5th respondent, no action was initiated, which is causing serious prejudice to the college. The 5 th respondent has also filed a detailed counter affidavit almost in similar lines.