SERAPHI JOHN Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is a Doctorate holder in Malayalam, was appointed as Lecturer in Malayalam in the College under the management of the 4th respondent for a period from 1.2.1990 to 29.3.1990 in the leave vacancy that arose consequent to the then incumbent availing leave. The said appointment is stated to have been pursuant to a selection process that was conducted by the College in accordance with the University Rules, and the same was approved by the respondent University by Ext.P2 order. Thereafter, to a vacancy that arose consequent to the retirement of a teacher in Malayalam on 31.3.2013, the petitioner was appointed by placing reliance on Section 57(6)(b) of the Kerala University Act, 1974 [hereinafter referred to as the 'Act']. The said appointment, which is evidenced by Ext.P3 order dated 1.6.2013, was also approved by the University by Ext.P4 order dated 5.10.2013. When, despite the approval of the appointment of the petitioner, the 3rd respondent refused to counter sign the salary bills pertaining to the petitioner, that were forwarded by the 5th respondent, the petitioner approached this Court through the present writ petition seeking a direction to the 3rd respondent to counter sign the salary bills so that the petitioner could receive salary.

(2.) Counter affidavits have been filed by the 1st respondent as also the 2nd respondent University. In the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent University, the appointment of the petitioner to the vacancy that resulted consequent to the retirement of a teacher on 31.3.2013, is justified on the basis of Section 57(6)(b) of the Act. It is stated that inasmuch as the petitioner had obtained preferential right to future appointments in the College, consequent to the approval accorded by the University to the earlier spell between 1.2.1990 and 29.3.1990 when the petitioner worked as a Lecturer in Malayalam, the appointment of the petitioner to the subsequent vacancy, which arose consequent to the retirement on 31.3.2013, was in order. In the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent, however, objection is taken to the appointment of the petitioner to the said vacancy. It is in particular pointed out that the initial appointment of the petitioner as Lecturer in Malayalam was only to a temporary vacancy, and as such, it was Section 57(6)(a) that would govern the appointment of the petitioner and not Section 57(6)(b) of the Act. Alternatively, it is contended that even in terms of Section 57(6)(b) of the Act, the right obtained by the petitioner consequent to the earlier spell is only a right to preference in the matter of future appointments in the College and not a right to get appointed as such. It is contended that, by virtue of the right obtained under Section 57(6)(b), the petitioner would be entitled to a preference over other candidates in a selection process that had to be necessarily conducted for determining the candidate who would be appointed to the post in question. A reply affidavit has also been filed by the petitioner refuting or traversing the averments in the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent.

(3.) On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the bar, I find that it is not in dispute that while appointing the petitioner as a Lecturer in Malayalam to the leave vacancy that arose between 1.2.1990 and 29.3.1990, the respondent had complied with a selection process as mandated by the provisions of the Kerala University Act, Rules and First Statues for selecting a candidate, and it was in that selection that the petitioner was selected and appointed to the leave vacancy. Section 57(6)(b) of the K.U.Act reads as follows: 57. Appointment of teachers in private colleges: