NARAYANA PILLAI Vs. REGISTRAR UNIVERSITY OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition to quash Ext. P2, and Ext. P4 orders. Two vacancies of Research Officers arose in the Statistics Department of the Kerala University in 1959, consequent on the permanent incumbents Sri R. Krishna Pillai and Sri N. Krishnan Namboothiri, leaving for America for higher studies. The petitioner and one Ayyappan Nair were selected and appointed to fill up the two vacancies, the former in the vacancy of Shri R. Krishna Pillai and the latter in the vacancy of Sri. N. Krishnan Namboothiri. A copy of the order of appointment of the petitioner is marked as Ext. P. 5; and from Ext. P5 it is clear that he was appointed only in the vacancy consequent on the deputation of Sri R. Krishna Pillai for foreign studies. Ext P5 runs as follows:

(2.) Exts. P2 and P4 orders are challenged by the petitioner's counsel mainly on two grounds. His first contention was that the petitioner was appointed by the Syndicate and the Syndicate alone could have terminated his appointment, and therefore the order Ext. P4, passed by the Professor of Statistics in pursuance of the direction of the Vice Chancellor contained in Ext. P2 terminating his services was inoperative in law, and that he should be deemed to be in service. The second contention was that the order terminating the services of the petitioner was discriminatory as persons who were appointed subsequent to the petitioner are being allowed to be continued in service and that was inconsistent with the practice up till then followed by the University. According to the petitioner the practice followed by the University was "first come fast go" and that the departure from that practice in the case of the petitioner was discriminatory.

(3.) As regards the first contention that the Syndicate being the appointing authority, the order terminating the services of the petitioner passed by the Professor of Statistics in pursuance of the directions in Ext. P2 was unauthorised, it was argued that neither the Vice Chancellor who passed Ext. P2 order nor the Professor could have passed an order terminating the services of the petitioner as the authority in that behalf was vested only in the Syndicate. Under S.19(h) of the Kerala University Act, the authority competent to dismiss the petitioner was the Syndicate and therefore the argument of the petitioner is technically correct. It is clear from the minutes of the proceedings of the Syndicate that the order passed by the Professor of Statistics in pursuance of the direction contained in Ext. P2 terminating the services of the petitioner was ratified by the Syndicate. But it was argued on behalf of the petitioner that ratification was of no avail as the orders passed by the Vice Chancellor and the Professor were not professedly passed for and on behalf of the Syndicate. It was submitted that ratification is possible only when a person having no authority to act on behalf of another person professedly acted on behalf of that person. Assuming that ratification was not possible, it is nevertheless correct to say that the Syndicate has decided to approve the action taken by the Vice Chancellor and the Professor of Statistics in passing Exts. P2 & P4 orders respectively.