THARA K. SIMON Vs. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, KOTTAYAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in W.P.(C).No.22872/202 is the appellant before us, aggrieved by the judgment dated 7.1.2021 of the learned Single Judge. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the Writ Appeal are as follows:

(2.) The appellant entered the service of the 3rd respondent College as Lecturer in Botany on 24.1.1994. She was promoted as Senior Grade Lecturer on 27.7.1998, as Selection Grade Lecturer on 27.7.2003 and as Associate Professor on 27.7.2006. After completing 24 years of service, she was considered for promotion as Principal, and appointed as such, with effect from 1.4.2018. When the appointment of the appellant as Principal was forwarded to the 1st respondent University for approval in accordance with Section 59 of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act, 1985, the same was rejected by the Syndicate of the University by proceedings dated 2.6.2018, which was produced as Ext.P6 in the Writ Petition. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner approached this Court through W.P.(C).No.18732/2018, which was disposed by Ext.P7 judgment that quashed Ext.P6 order and required the Syndicate to reconsider the matter on merit. In purported compliance with the directions of this Court in Ext.P7 judgment, the Syndicate once again considered the matter and rejected the proposal for approval of the appellant's appointment by an order dated 16.8.2018. The said rejection order was produced as Ext.P10 in the writ petition. The appellant therefore again approached this Court through W.P. (C).No.28807/2018, when a learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition by setting aside Ext.P10 order and directed a fresh assessment of the merits of the appellant to be done by a Committee appointed by the learned Single Judge. The said judgment of the learned Single Judge was impugned before a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1311/2019, and by Ext.P11 judgment, the Division Bench allowed the Writ Appeal by setting aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge, and directing the University to consider the matter afresh in the light of the directions issued by the Division Bench. The specific directions to the University are contained in paragraphs 14, 15 and 16 of Ext.P11 judgment, which read as follows:

(3.) In purported compliance with the directions in Ext.P11 judgment, the appellant submitted her representation dated 18.2.2020 [Ext.P12], and a Sub Committee that was constituted to look into the matter, considered the said representation, and recommended a rejection of the proposal that sought approval to the appointment of the appellant. The appellant was thereafter served with Ext.P14 communication, which indicated that the recommendations of the Sub Committee were approved by the Vice Chancellor of the University in exercise of his power under Section 10(17) of Chapter III of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act. It is the said order (Ext.P14) that was impugned by the appellant in the writ petition.