DANIEL Vs. MATHEW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order of the University Appellate Tribunal deciding the question of appointment of a Senior Superintendent in one of the colleges under the corporate management of the 2nd respondent, in favour of the 1st respondent herein. The Tribunal allowed the appeal preferred by the said respondent against the order of the corporate management, appointing the revision petitioner in the said post. It is unnecessary to detail the service history, or the grounds in support of the respective claims of the petitioner and the 1st respondent to the appointment for the post of the Senior Superintendent, in view of the preliminary objection raised by counsel for the 1st respondent herein that this revision petition is not maintainable. It was pointed out that the revision petition purported to have been filed under S.61(b) read with S.63 of the Kerala University Act, 1974, which came into force on 19-8-1974. S.61(b) and 63 of the Act read as follows:

(2.) Counsel for the respondent contended that even to examine the objection of the revision petitioner about the applicability of the 1974 Act, this revision should be maintainable; and that, it was not. It was argued that the revision conferred by Clause.9 of S.60 of the Act is only against an order passed by the Appellate Tribunal under sub clause (7). Sub clause (7) of S.60 deals only with orders passed in disciplinary proceedings taken against a teacher, and ex hypothesi by reason of S.63, against the members of the non teaching staff as well. Counsel for the respondent pointed out that the order in this case is not an order that concerns itself with disciplinary action and therefore would not fall within the purview of sub clause (7) of S.60, nor, of sub clause (9) thereto. Counsel argued that the appropriate provision under which the appeal to the Appellate Tribunal was preferred, was sub-s.(10) of S.57 which reads: