P C ABRAHAM Vs. UNIVERSITY OF COCHIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The decision under appeal is reported as P. C. Abraham v. University of Cochin ( 1972 KLT 810 ).

(2.) The University of Cochin called for applications under Ex. P1 dated 12th January 1972 for the post of part time Reader in Law fixing certain qualifications for the same. The appellant (and probably a few others) applied for the past. On 2nd February 1972, the University published an erratum (Ex. P2) to Ex. P1, wherein the qualifications mentioned in Ex. P1 were raised. The appellant alleged in the writ petition that this raising of the qualifications was intended to help a particular individual in whom some high official in the University was interested. The relevant files were produced before the single Judge (before us too); and the files reveal that there was yet another attempt to publish another erratum, where the attempt was to raise the age from 40 to 45. The counsel of the appellant has pointed out that this was yet another attempt to help the particular individual who was above 40, since it was realised that even Ex. P2 would not help him. The further contention was that the University bad no power to issue an erratum like Ex. P2, much less a second erratum. Considering all the facts and the relevant Statutes and Ordinances, the single Judge held that the Registrar, who acted at the instance of the Vice Chancellor, had power to issue not only Ex. P1 but also Ex. P2. And the learned Judge dismissed the writ petition which sought to quash Ext. P2.

(3.) It has been urged by the counsel of the appellant that the learned Judge has erred on an important fact. The counsel has pointed out that the Syndicate of the Cochin University was constituted on 23rd December 1971 and it held its first meeting on 22nd January 1972. Ext. P1 was issued as we have already stated, on 12th January 1972, after the constitution of the Syndicate but prior to its first meeting. (These facts are not disputed by the counsel of the University). Under S.59(4)(f) of the Cochin University Act, the Vice Chancellor has power generally to exercise all or any of the powers conferred on the statutory bodies by or under the provisions of the Act: but this power can be exercised only until the Syndicate commences to exercise its functions. In the present case, the Syndicate had its first meeting only on 22nd January 1972, so that Ex. P1 issued before that date was validly issued: but Ex. P2; which was issued subsequently cannot be salvaged by this provision. It is admitted by the counsel of the University that there is no other provision in the Act by which Ex. P2 can be sustained.