VICE CHANCELLOR Vs. NANDAKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 19.7.2011 of the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 4635 of 2011. The appellant, who is the Vice Chancellor of the Kerala Agricultural University, is the additional 4th respondent in the Writ Petition. The first respondent is the petitioner and the respondents 2 to 4 are the respondents 1 and 2 and the additional 3rd respondent respectively in the Writ Petition. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this Writ Appeal are stated as follows:--The first respondent is an Associate Professor (Animal Breeding and Genetics) in the College of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Mannuthy under the second respondent Kerala Agricultural University. He had participated in the selection and screening proceedings conducted by the Selection/Screening Committee from 12.7.2007 to 20.7.2007 under the Career Advancement Promotion Scheme for promotion to the post of Professor. But, he was denied promotion by the Screening Committee on the reasoning that his contributions were not upto the desired standards. Therefore, the first respondent filed W.P.(C) No. 26357/2007 in this Court challenging the selection process and the promotions made on the ground that they were done in violation of the Regulations and Guidelines issued by the University Grants Commission and for a direction to promote him to the post of Professor in the faculty of Veterinary and Animal Sciences. The University has filed a statement in that Writ Petition stating that a Redressal Committee was constituted as per the decision of the Executive Committee for examining the anomalies and grievances raised by the teachers/scientists with regard to the Career Advancement Promotions effected and requested to submit their grievances in writing before the said Committee. Thereafter, the first respondent filed a representation, produced as Ext.P16 in that Writ Petition, before the Vice Chancellor. This Court, by Ext.P1 judgment dated 24.9.2010, directed the Vice Chancellor to place Ext.P16 before the Redressal Committee without delay with a further direction to the Redressal Committee to consider and dispose of the same, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and any other affected party, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The Redressal Committee heard the first respondent on 3.11.2010 and examined the papers submitted by him at the time of hearing along with those he had submitted at the time of screening and found that he was denied promotion though he had three papers in international journals and other requirements and decided to place the matter before the Executive Committee for taking a decision regarding re-screening. Ext. P2 is a copy of the minutes of the Redressal Committee held on 19.11.2010. Ext.P2 was forwarded to the members of the Executive Committee by the Registrar of the University along with his Ext.P3 letter dated 6.1.2011.

(2.) The newly formed Kerala Veterinary and Animal Sciences University invited options from faculty members of the Kerala Agricultural University for joining the Kerala Veterinary and Animal Sciences University by Ext.P4 circular dated 12.1.2011. Therefore, delay in the matter of promotion to the post of Professor will seriously prejudice the first respondent and hence, notices were sent by him to the Vice Chancellor and the Registrar of the second respondent University requiring them to take a final decision in the matter of promotion. Thereafter, on 4.2.2011, he was served with Ext.P5 Action Taken Report dated 29.11.2010 intimating him that, as suggested by the Redressal Committee in Ext.P2, action was being taken to place the matter before the Executive Committee. Since, as per Ext.P2 decision of the Redressal Committee itself, the first respondent is entitled to promotion to the post of Professor and apprehending any further delay in the matter would' prejudice him, he preferred the Writ Petition for quashing Ext.P2 to the extent it refers to re-screening and for promoting him to the post of Professor in the faculty of Veterinary and Animal Sciences based on Ext.P2 with all consequential benefits.

(3.) The learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties, passed an interim order on 7.3.2011 directing the third respondent Executive Committee to take appropriate decision with regard to the claims of the first respondent within a period of three weeks. The first respondent, along with I.A. No. 9238 of 2011, produced Exts.P6 and P7 minutes of the meetings of the Executive Committee held on 15.3.2011 and 30.4.2011 before this Court. The Executive Committee, as could be seen from Ext.P7, decided to promote the first respondent in the light of the decision taken by the Redressal Committee with the dissent of the Vice Chancellor. After hearing the parties, the learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition and directed to implement the decision of the Executive Committee as reflected in Exts.P6 and P7 and to pass appropriate orders within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment by granting promotion to the first respondent as Professor under the Career Advancement Promotion Scheme. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the Vice Chancellor has preferred this Writ Appeal.