BALAKRISHNAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE judgment in O. P. No. 14973 of 1994 is under challenge in this writ appeal. THE appellant sought to quash Ext. P5 order passed by the first respondent, pursuant to the judgment of this court in W. A. No. 527 of 1994, which was filed against the judgment in O. P. No. 4361 of 1994 dt. 29-3-1994. THE question that the Division Bench considered in the writ appeal was whether "exts. P2 and P3 notifications issued by the second respondent university based upon the decision taken by the first respondent Government in regard to the status of the appellant as a member of the Senate without issuing notice to htm is sustainable in law", and observed that "since Ext. P2 notification was issued by the University on the basis of the decision taken by the first respondent admittedly without giving notice to the appellant, the first respondent be directed to take a fresh decision on the question whether the appellant has ceased to be a member of the Senate alter giving the appellant an opportunity of being heard in the matter". It was directed that "if the first respondent is still of the view that the appellant has ceased to be a member of the Senate a show cause notice may be issued to the appellant indicating the grounds in support of such view giving the appellant one week's time to tile his representation, if any, in the mailer. " pursuant to the above direction, the Government issued Ext. P6 show cause notice where if was pointed out that since the appellant had joined the College of Engineering, Chengannur as Principal, he cannot be treated as a teaching staff of the University Department, and therefore has ceased to be a member of the Senate as also of the Syndicate, to which he has been nominated as a member. To that he sent a reply marked as Ext. P7, which was not accepted by the Government and ultimately the Government passed Ext. P5 order stating that the appellant has ceased to be a member of the University teaching staff by virtue of the provisions contained in S. 20 (4) of the Cochin University of science and Technology Act, for short the Act. THE learned judge upheld Ext. P5 and dismissed the original petition.

(2.) WE heard counsel for the appellant and the respondents.

(3.) THE substantive position of the appellant in the engineering College is as Professor of Electronics. He has only been put in charge of office of the Principal of the College. Obviously he does not belong to the category of (i) of Section 19 of the Act and cannot claimed to be elected to the Senate from that category, but only under (v) of that section.