JENNY RAPPAI Vs. SREE SANKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY OF SANSKRIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who is an Associate Professor in the Department of English of the first respondent University at its Main Centre, Kalady filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P3 whereby she was ordered to be transferred to its Regional Centre at Tirur. Ext.P3 is challenged on various grounds. It is contended that Ext.P3 was issued under the influence exerted by the third respondent who got animosity towards the petitioner for filing a complaint against him before the Vice Chancellor of the University alleging an untoward incident. It is stated that the said complaint was then forwarded to the Women's Complaint Committee of the University constituted in terms of the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vishaka and Others v. State of Rajasthan and Others ((1997) 6 SCC 241). It is contended that the third respondent is reluctant to appear before the committee and in fact, he has been evading the said proceedings. During its pendency the third respondent became the Registrar of the University and with an ulterior motive and malafide intention he had inserted influence on the Pro Vice Chancellor who is in charge of the Vice Chancellor to transfer the petitioner and ultimately succeeded in doing so as per Ext.P3, it is submitted. It is the further contention of the petitioner that she is a guide to research scholars and therefore, her transfer to Tirur Centre would adversely affect the prospects of those research scholars. Above all, it is contended that in Tirur Centre there is no sanctioned post of Associate Professor in English and therefore, the very transfer of the petitioner as per Ext.P3 is against a non-existent post and on that sole score the order of transfer is liable to be set aside. Yet another contention of the petitioner is that there is no administrative exigency for transferring the petitioner. According to the petitioner, at the Tirur Centre only MA English is available and whereas, many more courses are available in Kalady Main Centre and therefore, taking into the fact that the petitioner is a Senior most Associate Professor and that the other Senior Associate Professor at the Main Centre viz., the third respondent is presently put-in-charge as the Registrar of the first respondent University the petitioner's service is required more at Kalady Main Centre.

(2.) AN affidavit has been filed by the first respondent. Evidently, the same was sworn in by the third respondent in his capacity as the Professor in charge of Registrar of the first respondent University. In the said affidavit dated 4.6.2013 it is stated that the entire Professors/Teachers of the University are considered as a single unit and each person would be posted at each centre according to the work load and for the smooth functioning of the centre. It is the further contention that in English Department the posts sanctioned/created are at the cadre of Assistant Professor and some of them including the petitioner are subsequently promoted to higher cadres under the Career Advancement Scheme of UGC. It is also stated therein that in the meeting of the Standing Committee on staff held on 13.3.2013 it was resolved to recommend to approve the staff pattern of teachers for implementing the same in teaching department and as per the same the required number of teachers in English at the Tirur Centre is five. Ext.R1(f) is the minutes of the said meeting. It is also stated therein that repeated notifications for appointment of guest lecturers at Tirur Centre have been issued by the Campus Director and going by Ext.R1(g) despite such notifications non-availability of guest lecturers continues. The admission process to new batch is underway at Tirur Centre and therefore, after the admission process there would be two batches of students at Tirur Centre and in such eventuality, it would not be practicable to conduct classes with two Assistant Professors alone. In short, according to the first respondent, it was taking into account such circumstances that the petitioner who is fully qualified and experienced was transferred as per Ext.P3. Subsequently, a counter affidavit has been filed by the first respondent and it was also sworn in by the third respondent in his capacity as the Professor in charge of Registrar of the first respondent University. In the said counter affidavit the allegations levelled against the third respondent have also been attempted to be refuted. It is contended that Ext.R1(b) is the complaint filed by the petitioner against the third respondent and a perusal of the same would reveal that it carries no allegation of any sexual harassment. The further contention therein is that if the petitioner is having any grievance regarding the Women's Complaint Committee in the matter of handling of a written complaint she has to work out her remedies elsewhere and not in this writ petition which carries only a challenge against Ext.P3 transfer order. It is stated therein that all the allegations were raised in the writ petition only with a view to get modified or cancelled Ext.P3 order of transfer. It is also stated therein that the deponent is not the regular appointee to the post of Registrar and he is holding only the charge of the Registrar as a stopgap arrangement. It is further stated therein that Post Graduate Programme in English is offered in the University Main Centre, Kalady and University Centres at Thiruvananthapuram and Tirur. It is further stated in the counter affidavit as follows:-

(3.) EARLIER , when the matter came up for admission, this Court passed an interim order on 3.6.2013 to the effect that if the petitioner was not already relieved pursuant to Ext.P3 she shall not be relieved. That order was extended from time to time. In the counter affidavit it is stated that though Ext.R1(e) relieving order was prepared pursuant to Ext.P3, on getting information regarding the said interim order of this Court from the Standing Counsel it was not communicated to the petitioner. I.A.No.8128 of 2013 was then filed seeking to vacate the interim order. Along with the same Exts.R1(i) and (j) were also produced. Ext.R1(i) is a copy of the relevant portion of the minutes of the Syndicate meeting held on 15.6.2013. It would reveal that at the said Syndicate meeting held on 15.6.2013 it was resolved to approve the staff pattern of teachers and to implement the same in the teaching departments from the current academic year. Essentially, Ext.R1(i) was passed for implementing the decisions in Ext.R1(f) as well which is a recommendation of the Standing Committee on staff held on 13.3.2013. Obviously, as per Ext.R1(f), the Standing Committee resolved only to recommend to approve the staff pattern of teachers for implementing the same in teaching departments and Ext.R1(j) is the consequential orders passed based on the Syndicate decision dated 17.6.2013.