JOSEPH K FRANCIS Vs. VICE CHANCELLOR KERALA UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this appeal a lecturer in English who has had long service in the second respondent college has challenged the appointment of the third respondent to the post of a professor in English and Head of the English department in the college by Ext. P3 order dated 15-4-66. The controversy between the appellant and the third respondent appears to have commenced more than a decade ago and has been fought out with a persistence which is commendable. This is the second time the matter has been considered by this Court. On the first occasion by judgment in O. P. No. 889 of 1970 which was disposed of on the 21st March, 1972 this Court directed (hat the University should consider the whole matter arising from the complaint of the appellant before the University that the third respondent had been wrongly chosen for the post of professor along with the representation made by the second respondent evidenced by Ext. R3 in these proceedings. The Vice Chancellor who, it was not disputed before us, was competent to deal with the matter passed Ext. P2 order rejecting the complaint of the appellant. The writ application O. P. No. 2819 of 1972 challenging the order Ext. P2 was dismissed by Justice Nambiyar by the judgment under appeal.

(2.) THE ground on which the order Ext. P2 of the Vice chancellor is rested is that the appellant was not qualified for holding the post of a professor and Head of the Department in the second respondent college. This finding has been very strenuously challenged before us by counsel for the appellant. Our attention was drawn to the Travancore University Act, 1113 and particularly to S. 18 (f) thereof which authorises the Syndicate subject to the provisions of this Act and the Statutes to prescribe qualifications of teachers in the colleges and in the institutions maintained by the University. We have then been referred to the Ordinances framed under that Act, Chapter XVI and our attention was drawn to Para. 1 and 2 thereof. THE second paragraph provided:-"the Syndicate may in the exceptional case of a candidate who has passed the Honours or M. A. or M. Sc. Degree Examination in the Third Class recognise this qualification as equivalent to the qualifications prescribed in para one above provided he has had at least seven years teaching experience in colleges and provided further that his entire academic career and his tested teaching experience justify such exemption. " Reference was then made to the minutes of the Syndicate april to June, 1955 at page 111 and Para. 83 was relied on. That paragraph is in these terms: "83. Considered the requests from the Principals of private colleges under the University that teachers who do not possess the qualification prescribed by the Ordinances and who are working in the colleges may be granted exemption from the provisions in the Ordinances; together with the recommendation thereon of the Standing committee on Staff, Equipment and Buildings. Resolved that exemption from the Ordinances prescribing the qualification of teacher be granted to teachers who possess a third Class b. A. (Hons)/b. Sc. (Hons) or M. A. /m. Sc Degree of a recognised University and that the case of others be scrutinised further at the next meeting of the syndicate. " THE Travancore University Act, 1113 was superseded by the kerala University Act. 1957 and Chap. 16 of the Ordinances framed under that Act provided in Para. 6 and 7 as follows: "6. Classification of successful candidates: candidates who pass in both the parts at their first appearance and who obtain not less than 60 per cent of the total marks shall be placed in the First class: those who obtain less than 60 per cent but not less than 50 per cent shall be placed in the Second Class, and other successful candidates including those who complete the examination by passing in Parts at different examinations shall be placed in the Third Class. 7. THE marks obtained by candidates will be issued on application together with the prescribed fee. In the case of those who have passed or completed the whole examination the class obtained will also be indicated in the mark list. " Counsel relying on Para. 6 which we have extracted above contended that the general exemption that has been granted by the resolution passed by the Syndicate which we have extracted earlier in the judgment will continue to be in operation and therefore the appellant was qualified for the post of a teacher. Reference was made to the decision of the Supreme Court in jagdish Fandey v. THE Chancellor, University of Bihar and others (AIR. 1968 SC. 353) and it was stressed that the exemption will enure not only for the purpose of holding the post that he held at the time the new Act came into force but would be sufficient to enable the appellant to claim promotion to the post of professor. THEse aspects were not brought to the notice of the learned judge who dismissed the O. P. by the judgment under appeal. Nor was the matter brought to the notice of the Vice Chancellor who passed Ext. P2 order. But now that the whole matter is before us considering the fact that this dispute has been pending for a very long time we do not think that we should send back the case to the University or the Vice Chancellor for a de novo fresh consideration. But before doing so, we must refer to another aspect.

(3.) IT is clear from this provision that the Syndicate can approve the appointment as Head of a Department of a person,only if that person possessed a Third Class Honours Degree and has had not less than 7 years' teaching experience. Admittedly the appellant before us is not a B. A. Honours but only a M. A. and did not have a Second Class In M. A. but only a Third class. The minutes of the Syndicate containing the exception which we have extracted earlier cannot apply to the qualifications prescribed for the Heads of the Departments. The Syndicate itself had no power to exempt a Third Class m. A. for the purpose of appointing him as a Head of the Department. Therefore the contention on behalf of the appellant with reference to the various Acts and Ordinances and the Minutes and the Supreme Court decision cannot be accepted. The conclusion reached by the Vice Chancellor that the appellant was not qualified seems to be correct. This is enough to dismiss this appeal.