M.A.H. KHAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a member of the Syndicate of the 2nd respondent Kannur University. He was nominated to the Syndicate, as the Principal of a college, affiliated to the University, by Ext.P2 order dated 10.06.2002. The said nomination was made under the Kannur University Amendment Act, 2001, which is produced as Ext.P1. Section 23 of the Kannur University Act, as amended by Ext.P1, deals with the constitution of the Syndicate. The members are broadly classified as Ex -officio members and other members. Two principals of colleges, affiliated to the University, nominated by the Government, shall be the members of the Syndicate, as per Clause (c) of Section 23 under the heading 'other members'. The term of office of the members of the Syndicate is provided in Section 24. Normally, the term of the members, other than Ex -officio members, is 4 years from the date of their nomination, as per Sub -section (1) of Section 24. The petitioner was nominated on 10.6.2002. So, normally, he can continue up to 10.06.2006. But the first proviso to Section 24(1) provides, inter alia, that no person, who is nominated as the holder of a particular office, shall be a member of the Syndicate for a longer period than 3 months, after he has ceased to be the holder of such office, unless he becomes the holder of that office again, within three months. The petitioner has, admittedly, been nominated as the holder or the office of Principal of an affiliated college. But, the second proviso to Sub -section (1) of Section 24 mentioned above, further provides that such a member can continue to hold office, until his successor is nominated. The petitioner retired from service on 31.03.2003. The three months' period expired on 30.06.2003. Soon thereafter, by Ext.P5 order dated 14.08.2003. the petitioner was again appointed as the Principal of another self -financing affiliated college. While so, the General Secretary of the Kannur University Employees' Union filed representations before the University and the Government, stating that the petitioner has ceased to be a member of the Syndicate, after 30.06.2003. The Government sought the views of the University on this controversy, The University, in Ext.P6 communication dated 01.11.2003 addressed to the Government, took the stand that the petitioner can continue as a Syndicate Member, until his successor is nominated. But, the Government by Ext.P8 dated 29.01.2004, took the view that the petitioner has ceased to be a member of the Syndicate with effect from 30.06.2003. The said communication reads as follows:

(2.) THE 2nd respondent University has filed a counter affidavit, supporting the impugned order. Though, initially, by Ext.P6, it supported the case of the petitioner, now, in this Writ Petition, it is supporting the stand of the Government and opposing the contentions of the petitioner.

(3.) I heard Mr.KJaju Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Viju Abraham, learned Government Pleader, appearing for the first respondent State, Mr.Mohammed Mustaque, learned Standing Counsel for the University, Mr.M.Sasindran, learned counsel for the additional 3rd respondent and also Mr.K.K.Ravindranath, learned counsel for the petitioner in the connected Writ Petition. The learned counsel for the petitioners in both the Writ Petitions submitted that the Syndicate consists of Ex -officio members and other members. The Ex -officio members become members of the Syndicate, by virtue of their office. Other members are nominated by the Government, representing various categories. The petitioner has been nominated as one, holding the office of Principal. His term expires on completion of 4 years or on completion of three months after his retirement from the office of Principal. But, persons like the petitioner can continue in office, till his successor is nominated, by virtue of the second proviso to Section 24(1), it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent submitted that the nominated members of the Syndicate, are representing various groups. If the contention of the petitioner is accepted, then, a retired Principal can continue indefinitely, taking shelter behind the second proviso. So, the very purpose of the first proviso that he should lay down office after three months of his retirement, will be defeated, it is submitted. Therefore, the 3rd respondent submits that the petitioner has ceased to be a member of the Syndicate, from 30.6.2003. The learned Government Pleader and also the learned Standing Counsel for the University raised contentions, identical to those raised by the 3rd respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioners, in support of their submissions, relied on the decisions in Mathew Philip v. Malayalam Plantations (India) Ltd. (1994 (2) KLT 130 :, ILR 1994 Ker 557) Ali v. State ofKerala : 2003 (2) KLT 922 Haryana State Co -operative Land Development Bank Ltd. v. : (2004)ILLJ583SC , Mani v. : 2005(1)KLT588 . University of Kerala v. : AIR2005Ker98 and Kedamath Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. The Commercial Tax Officer .