CORPORATE MANAGER Vs. REGISTRAR CALICUT UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first petitioner is the corporate manager of the CMC Educational Society, Kolazhy, Trichur which runs 4 private colleges affiliated to the Calicut University. Petitioners 2 to 6 are the lecturers appointed by the first petitioner. They were appointed as lecturers as per Exts. P1 to P5. Exts. P6 to P10 are the representations made by petitioners 2 to 6 to the Registrar of the University of Calicut, to approve their appointments in respect of which the first petitioner had already made a request to the University. As respondent No. 1 the Registrar of the University did not communicate the approval sought, the petitioners have approached this Court in OP No. 10560 of 1985 for the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the first respondent to approve the appointments of petitioners 2 to 6 and to pay the salary to them. The second respondent is the State Government and the third respondent is the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education. The 4th respondent has been added at her instance. The learned Single Judge before whom the original petition came up for consideration felt that the relevant decision of this Court reported in 1980 KLT 666 between Mother Anasthasia and University Appellate Tribunal requires reconsideration. It is for that reason that the learned Single Judge has referred this case to the Division Bench.

(2.) The approval was sought by the first petitioner as per S.57(9) of the Calicut University Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') which provides that every appointment under S.57 shall be reported to the University for approval. S.57 deals with the appointment of teachers in private colleges. Though there is no express provision in the Act casting an obligation on the University to accord approval, it is implicit in the language of sub-s.(9) of S.57 that the University is under a duty to render a decision in regard to the approval sought under S.57(9) of the Act and communicate the same to the management seeking such approval. The first petitioner having sought approval in respect of the appointment of petitioners 2 to 6 it was the first respondent's duty to communicate his decision on the request made to the University, that being the legal duty of the first respondent. As the said legal duty has not been discharged by the University, the petitioners are entitled to seek a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the University to take a decision on the question of granting approval to the appointment of petitioners 2 to 6 as requested by the first petitioner and to communicate the same expeditiously.

(3.) But then, it was submitted that the view taken by this court in 1980 KLT 666 requires reconsideration. The question that was considered in the said case was in regard to the interpretation of sub-s.(6) of S.57 which reads: