SAJAN M. Vs. KANNUR UNIVERSITY AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE the issue involved in both these writ petitions pertain to the appointment of Reader and Lecturer in the respondent University based on the notification issued on 14/10/2010, they were considered together and disposed of through this common judgment. Reference to parties and exhibits contained hereinafter is in the order as contained in WP(C) No. 31819/2013.

(2.) THE respondent University invited applications for appointment of Reader and Lecturer in different departments, by virtue of Ext. P1 notification, dated 17/06/2010. In Ext. P1, except six posts, all the vacancies were notified as temporary posts. A member of the Senate of the respondent University had challenged Ext. P1 notification in a writ petition filed before this court, WP(C) No. 23387/2010. In Ext. P2 interim order passed by this court the operation Ext. P1 notification was stayed to the extent it notified the temporary vacancies. This court clarified that, if the University is intending to make temporary appointments based on Ext. P1 notification, such appointment should not be regularised and the appointees should be intimated about the same. It was clarified that the University will be at liberty to issue fresh notification cancelling Ext. P1. Contention taken by the respondent University in WP(C) No. 23387/2010 was that the temporary vacancies notified under Ext. P1 will be converted into permanent posts, on getting concurrence from the Government. Ext. P2 interim order was issued on 19/08/2010. Thereafter, the Government through Exts. P3 and P4 have accorded sanction to create 30 posts (2 Readers and 28 Lecturers). The University, after getting Ext. P5 legal opinion, have re -notified the posts including the 30 posts for which Government sanction was obtained along with the existing vacancies notified under Ext. P1. The petitioners in WP(C) 23387/2010 as well as certain others have filed writ petitions before this court challenging Ext. P6 notification. A common interim order was issued by this court as per Ext. P7 on 23/12/2010, directing to keep in abeyance the final selection, till 31/01/2011. However the University went on with the selection process and conducted interview of candidates, during April and May 2011. In July 2013 the University moved before this court to get Ext. P7 interim order vacated. Accordingly on 8/07/2013 Ext. P9 common interim order was issued by this court vacating Ext. P7 interim order and making it clear that the respondent University will be entitled to fill up the permanent vacancies without any clubbing arrangement as contended in the writ petitions and by following the Rules and norms of reservation applicable for permanent vacancies. From Ext. P9 it is evident that, the University had submitted before this court that there are no temporary vacancies to be filled up as the entire temporary vacancies available had already been exhausted. It was pointed out that, due to Ext. P7 interim order the University was prevented from filling up the permanent vacancies. It is on the basis of such a submission that this court was inclined to vacate Ext. P7 order. Subsequently, all the writ petitions challenging Ext. P6 notification was disposed of through Ext. P10, common judgment. This court observed that in view of Ext. P9 interim order no further order is required in the matter. Accordingly the writ petitions were closed leaving open all other contentions to be decided in appropriate proceedings. Averments in the present writ petitions is that, despite completion of the selection process based on the interview conducted, the Syndicate of the University in its meeting held on 31/12/2013 have decided to re -notify the teaching posts in view of Ext. P10 judgment and in view of the legal opinion given by the Standing Counsel, observing that the reservation norms will apply only to the permanent/regular vacancies. It is alleged that the decision to re -notify posts were taken only because of the change occurred in the constitution of the Syndicate. It is contended that, the selection committee had completed all the formalities and a select list was prepared for appointment. Thereafter it is highly arbitrary on the part of the Syndicate to vary the decision taken earlier and to re -notify the posts. Ext. P11 is the extract of the Minutes which contained the impugned decision of the Syndicate of the respondent University. It is aggrieved by the said decision these writ petitions are filed. Relief to the extent of quashing Ext. P11 inter alia with direction to make appointment based on the selection made pursuant to Ext. P6 notification is the relief sought for.

(3.) ON behalf of the petitioners it is contended that, once the selection committee had completed the process of selection and made recommendations to the Syndicate, the Syndicate is bound to make appointment based on such recommendation. Statute 4 of Chapter III of the Kannur University First Statutes, 1998 enumerates the constitution of a selection committee for appointment of teachers, including the post of Reader/Lecturer. Statute 3 of Chapter III provides that recommendations of the selection committee shall be placed before the Syndicate, which shall make the appointments. The proviso to the said Statutes prescribes that when the Syndicate proposes to make appointments other than in accordance with the above said provision, the Syndicate shall record its reasons and shall submit its proposals for sanction of the Chancellor. Based on the above provision, it is contended that since the selection committee had finalised the select list based on Ext. P6 notification, the Syndicate was not competent to take a decision to re -notify the post. In this regard, learned senior counsel had placed reliance on a decision of this court in O.P. No. 2123/1989 (judgment dated 12th October 1992). Referring to an identical provision contained in the Kerala University Statute, a learned judge of this court observed that the Syndicate is bound to record its reason for deviating from the recommendation of the selection committee and should submit the proposal for sanction of the Chancellor. Since no specific reason was mentioned by the Syndicate, the decision would violate the provisions contained in the Statute is the finding. In a later decision of this court in Sobha B. Nair v. University of Kerala : [2004(1) KLT 541] it was observed that, when the selection committee exercises the delegatory powers conferred upon the Syndicate, it has to be deemed that the selection was carried out by the Syndicate itself. Once the selection is made by the committee, the Syndicate has to take follow up steps for appointing the persons concerned and it has no residuary or other powers to reject the recommendation. The decision in Sobha B.Nair's case (supra) was followed in a recent decision rendered by learned judge of this court in WP(C) No. 12874/2014, dated 03/12/2014. It is held that, when the recommendations of the selection committee is placed before the Syndicate, the Syndicate has to make appointment and there is no scope for deliberation or interpolation of opinions. No discretion has been conferred on them in this regard.