DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION Vs. ST.DOMINIC COLLEGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The questions arising for consideration in these appeals are closely interlinked and they are, therefore, disposed of by this common judgment. Among the appeals, W.A.No.1070 of 2022 is directed against the judgment in W.P. (C) No.5638 of 2022 and W.A.No.1136 of 2022 is directed against the judgment in W.P.(C) No.10888 of 2022. Parties and documents are referred to in this judgment, as they appear in W.P.(C) No.5638 of 2022.

(2.) The petitioner is the Manager of St.Dominics College, a private aided Arts and Science College coming under the Direct Payment Scheme of the State Government. The College is affiliated to the Mahatma Gandhi University (the University) constituted under the Mahatma Gandhi University Act (the Act). When the Principal of the said College (the College) retired, the Educational Agency decided to fill up the vacancy by direct recruitment in terms of Sec. 59(2) of the Act. It is stated that a Selection Committee was accordingly constituted and one Dr.Seemon Thomas who was selected by the Selection Committee was appointed as the Principal of the College. Thereupon, the proposal for approval of the appointment of the Principal was forwarded by the Manager to the University in terms of the provisions contained in the Mahatma Gandhi University Statutes, 1997 (the Statutes). The said proposal was, however, rejected by the University in terms of Ext.P8 order on the ground that the College does not have five hours of teaching workload per week for the subject viz, Statistics to be allocated to the Principal. Before issuing Ext.P8 order, the University had, in fact, sought a clarification from the Government as to whether it was obligatory for the Principal to have teaching workload as per Ext.P1 order issued by the Government earlier providing for teaching workload for Principals of private colleges which was later modified by the Government in terms of Ext.P2 order. On the said request, the Government clarified that it is necessary for the Principal to have minimum teaching workload of five hours per week. It is on the basis of the said clarification that Ext.P8 order was issued by the University. Ext.P8 order is under challenge in the writ petition.

(3.) The case set out by the petitioner in the writ petition is that minimum teaching workload is not insisted for Principals of Arts and Science colleges neither in the Ordinance issued by the Syndicate of the University under Sec. 37 of the Act nor in the Regulations issued by the University Grants Commission (the UGC) and that the University cannot, therefore, decline approval of the appointment of the Principal on the ground that there is no teaching workload in the College for the subject of the person appointed as the Principal. It is also the case of the petitioner that Ext.P1 order of the Government which provides that the Principals of private colleges shall have five hours of teaching workload in his/her subject per week has been modified by the Government as per Ext.P2 order which does not provide for teaching workload for Principals. It is the further case of the petitioner that insofar as the candidate appointed as Principal of the College was duly qualified in terms of the Regulations issued by the UGC, the University ought to have approved his appointment.