GOPINATHAN NAIR Vs. VICE CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question is whether the two petitioners were probationers in the post of Junior Lecturers in the Union Christian College, Alwaye, entitling them to prefer an appeal under sub-s.(7) of S.55 of the Kerala University Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to the Vice Chancellor of the Kerala University, the 1st respondent to this petition. Though by Ex. P8 order dated 11-12-1970 the 1st respondent held that an appeal under sub-s.(7) of S.55 of the Act to him is competent, by Ex. P9 order dated 19-12-1970 the 1st respondent came to the conclusion that the petitioners were not probationers.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioners contended that the view taken by the 1st respondent cannot be sustained in view of the amendment to S.55 of the Act which introduced a new sub-section, sub-s.(4) and an explanation thereto. To understand this contention it is necessary to refer to S.55 of the Act as it stood before the amendment as well as sub-s.(4) of S.55 and the explanation thereto as it had been amended by the Kerala University (Amendment) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Amending Act) which was published in the Kerala Gazette on the 22nd May, 1971. We shall first extract S.55 of the Act as it stood before the amendment effected by the Amending Act.

(3.) The two petitioners were appointed by Exs. P1 and P2 orders dated 21-7-1969 and 23-6-1969 as Junior Lecturers for specific periods, the appointments to terminate automatically on 31-5-1970. The petitioners were told that they would cease to be in employment from 31-5-1970 by Exs. P5 and P6 communications dated 30-4-1970. The petitioners actually ceased to be in service from 1-6-1970. At that time the petitioners were appointed, the Act had come into force and though no Ordinance had been framed under the Act, the Ordinances framed under the earlier Act, the Kerala University Act, 1957, which was in force immediately before the commencement of the Act in so far as the Ordinances were not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act continued to be in force until they were replaced by Ordinances framed under the Act (Vide S.75(2) of the Act). Chap.57 of the Ordinances in Paragraph envisaged appointment of teachers either on a permanent basis, or on probation or a temporary basis or for a specific period. It is clear that the orders Exs. P1 and P2 were orders appointing the two petitioners for specified periods.