STATE Vs. THIRUVANCHOOR RADHAKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the writ appeals arise out of a common judgment of the learned Single Judge rendered in OP No. 9680/1996. While WA No. 1153/1996 has been filed by the State of Kerala, WA No. 1168/1996 is by Dr. K. C. Joseph, the third respondent in the Original Petition.

(2.) The petitioner in the Original Petition is a member of the Kerala Legislative Assembly. On 7.6.1995, he was nominated as a member of the Syndicate of the Cochin University of Science and Technology (hereinafter called the 'University') under S.17(1)(x) of the Cochin University of Science and Technology Act (hereinafter called the 'Act'). Ext. P1 Notification was issued by the University nominating him and also another person as members of the Syndicate of the University. The notification further stated that the terms of office of the nominees would be for a period of four years from 7.6.1995 and it shall be subject to the provisions of the Act and the statutes thereunder. Thus, the petitioner could continue to be a member of the Syndicate upto 7.6.1999. But, by letter dated 12.6.1996, Ext. P2, the Commissioner and Secretary, Higher Education Department, Government of Kerala nominated respondents 3 and 4 of the original petition as members of the Syndicate of the University under S.17(1)(x) of the Act The consequential notification, Ext. P3, was thus issued by the Registrar of the University notifying the nomination of respondents 3 and 4. The Original Petition was thus filed for quashing Exts.P2 and P3, on the ground that (1) the petitioner had neither resigned nor ceased to be a member, (2) Ext. P2 was not a decision under S.17(1)(x) of the Act, and (3) it was issued in violation of Statute 74 of the Cochin University First Statutes. The Original Petition was later amended by filing CMP 17081/1996, wherein the petitioner took the ground that he could not be deemed to have vacated the membership by not attending three consecutive meetings as envisaged under S.46 of the Act.

(3.) A statement was filed on behalf of the second respondent, the University, and it was contended that the petitioner ceased to be a member of the Syndicate since he failed to attend three consecutive meetings of the Syndicate, ie., 365th meeting held on 21.12.1995, the 366th meeting dated 30.12.1995 and 367th meeting notified to be held on 17.1.1996. The said meeting had to be aborted due to lack of Quorum because a majority of the members of the Syndicate including the petitioner did not attend the meeting. The 367th meeting of the Syndicate was then held on 8th February 1996. The petitioner did not attend any of these four meetings. Therefore, in terms of S.46(4) of the Act, the petitioner ceased to be a member of the Syndicate. The Registrar of the University informed the petitioner about the cessation of his membership by letter dated 15.4.1996, produced as Ext.R2(a). The petitioner failed to submit any reply to the said Ext.R2(a) disclosing reasons for his absence. Since the petitioner ceased to be a member, Ext. P3 notification was issued nominating respondents 3, 4 to the Syndicate of the University. The fourth respondent was nominated in the place of Sri. Zacharia Salt, who ceased to be a member of the Legislative Assembly.