UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT Vs. P P MOHAMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPEAL is filed against judgment of the learned Single Judge vacating the order issued by the Chancellor of the University and directing him to consider the appeal filed by the first respondent against his termination by the appellant-University as the Registrar of Calicut University.

(2.) ADMITTEDLY an appeal is provided against the termination of the first respondent by the University before the Chancellor. In fact, appeal was also filed by the first respondent against his termination from service before the Chancellor. However, appeal was rejected by the Chancellor as defective for the reason that it was not routed through the Syndicate. Even though counsel for the appellant referred to the statutory provisions in the University Act providing for appeal and the procedure to be followed and the violations thereof, we do not think we should repeat it because all these are discussed in detail in the judgment of the learned Single Judge. After rejection of the appeal as defective by the Chancellor, the first respondent submitted an appeal through proper channel i.e. through the Syndicate, which was rejected by the Chancellor and University for the reason that it is delayed as it was filed beyond 60 days which is the statutory period under the University Act to file appeal. In fact, when the appeal was rejected by the University and the Chancellor, the first respondent challenged the same by filing W.P.(C). The University's contention that a belated appeal cannot be entertained and this court cannot condone the delay was turned down by the learned Single Judge holding that denial of an opportunity to contest the termination of first respondent in appeal, will be a complete denial of the statutory rights. It is also stated that the appeal that was filed in the first round without delay was only defective in as much as it was not forwarded through the Syndicate. Counsel for the appellant relied on decision of this court in ASST. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE VS. KRISHNA PODUVAL reported in 2005(4) KLT 947 and contended that if the statutory remedy is not pursued in full, this court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot interfere. However, counsel for the first respondent contended that the decision of the learned Single is accepted by the Chancellor, the appellate authority, and he has posted the appeal for hearing on 16.2.2011.