LEELAKRISHNAN Vs. COCHIN UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Original Petitions challenge the same proceedings. THE Writ Appeals were tiled against the interim orders passed in the Original petitions. When the Writ Appeals came up for hearing, it was agreed that the original Petitions can be heard. Hence, all matters were heard together and they are disposed of by a common judgment.

(2.) PETITIONER in O. P. No. 403 of, Dr. Leelakrishnan is a member of the Syndicate of Cochin University of Science and Technology (hereinafter called 'the University' ). The Chancellor nominated him to the senate of the University from the constituency of eminent educationists under s. 19 of the University Act (hereinafter called 'the actl ).

(3.) THE incumbent of the post of Registrar was to retire on 30. 11. 1995. THE issue came before the Syndicate on 2. 9. 1995. It again came on 30. 11. 1995. On that date the Syndicate resolved to authorise the Vice chancellor to constitute a selection committee under S. 31 (2) (c) of the Act to interview the candidates found eligible and submit the panel to the Government. Petitioner in O. P. No. 4031/96 is Dr. Leelakrishnan. According to him, the selection committee under S. 31 (2) (c) of the Act is concerning the non-teaching posts and it is not applicable to the post of Registrar. Regarding the post of registrar, the Syndicate itself has to select the persons. Subsequently, the selection committee was constituted which consisted of two experts who were not members of the Syndicate. On 8. 2. 1996, the Vice Chancellor placed before the syndicate the recommendation of the Selection Committee. Some members including the petitioners wanted a fresh selection committee to be formed. According to the minutes, the members became unruly and aggressive and behaved in un parliamentary manner (the name of members are not mentioned ). THE Vice chancellor adjourned the meeting since he felt that it was difficult to continue the meeting. THEreafter, a written representation was prepared by the petitioners and others on 11. 2. 1996 and they submitted it to the Vice chancellor on 12. 2. 1996 and met him in his chamber. THE representation is Ext. P3. THE representation is signed by the petitioners and 4 other members. In ext. P3, it is stated that the Vice Chancellor's action in abruptly adjourning the meeting was irregular. THE reason for adjourning the meeting was not stated. THEy asked the Vice Chancellor to hold the adjourned meeting on 15. 2,1996. It was further stated that the Vice Chancellor will be responsible for the consequences if there was inaction on his part.