JYOTHI MARIAM JOHN Vs. UNION CHRISTIAN COLLEGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Ramachandran Nair, J.-- Writ petition is filed challenging Ext. P-4 order whereunder petitioner is removed from the post of Head of the Chemistry Department with immediate effect and by same order 4th respondent is given charge as the Head of the Department. We have heard counsel appearing for the petitioner, Management, Principal and the contesting parties including 3 Associate Professors who got impleaded as additional respondents and also the standing counsel for Mahatma Gandhi University to which the 1st respondent college is affiliated. On retirement of the Head of the Department on 31-3-2011 the petitioner was appointed as Head of the Department of the Chemistry Department vide Ext. P-1 order of appointment dated 30-3-2011. It is seen from Ext P-1 that the petitioner's appointment was for 3 years from 1-4-2011 or till her retirement whichever happens earlier. However, on being dissatisfied with the performance of the petitioner as Head of the Department in the course of nearly a year the Governing body of the 1st respondent college decided to substitute her with the 4th respondent, which is the decision communicated to the petitioner vide Ext. P-4 dated 29-3-2012. Even though the petitioner had handed over charge to the 4th respondent on being replaced by her, without noticing the same this court granted an interim stay which is later vacated by the Single Judge, against which writ appeal filed by the petitioner was closed by us today through separate judgment.

(2.) Petitioner's case is that she is victimised for no fault of hers by the Management with the help of few teachers in the Department who are enimical to her. However the case of the respondents is that the petitioner has never been able to co-ordinate the teaching staff of the Department and she has not been providing leadership to the Department leading to disharmony and consequent deterioration in the Department. Going through the counter-affidavit it is seen that the matter was dragged by the petitioner to the Human Rights Commission and even to the Women's Commission which provoked the Management to change her.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner contended that even though Head of the Department is not a promotion post and it does not carry any financial benefit, as matter of practice, the Seniormost Cadre Professor and in the absence of Seniormost Associate Professor gets appointed as Head of the Department and the petitioner being the Seniormost Associate Professor was rightly appointed for a tenure of 3 years vide Ext. P-1. According to counsel there is no justifiable circumstance to replace the petitioner with 4th respondent which in fact amounts to punishment. However, the case of the respondents is that the Management was compelled to replace the petitioner only because of her non-co-operative attitude and incapacity to co-ordinate staff members particularly teaching staff in the Department which has led to deterioration in the performance of the Chemistry Department. The legal question to be considered is whether the seniormost person in the Department is entitled to be appointed as Head of the Department as a matter of right and even if appointed whether the Management has a right to change the person by another person junior to such person. The Mahatma Gandhi University Statutes, 1997 which provides for appointment of Head of the Department are as follows: