DR. M.P. GIRIDHARAN Vs. KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE main prayer in the writ petition is for a direction to finalise enquiry proceedings pursuant to Ext.P7 after giving the petitioner full opportunity to defend the enquiry etc. The petitioner herein is working as Associate Professor in the Regional Agricultural Research Station, Pilicode under the first respondent University. Pursuant to Ext.P1 order dated 20/01/2000 of the Comptroller of the Kerala Agricultural University, the petitioner started a research on sweet toddy under the Kerala Agricultural University Plan Project. It was funded by the University and later the project continued under the National Agricultural Technology Project.

(2.) THE third respondent herein is the head of Instructional Farm, Vellanikkara under the same University. It appears that there was a complaint regarding the duplication of the research work and, therefore, the University as per Ext.P7 constituted a High Level Committee consisting of three members to enquire into the whole issues on 'Kerasudha'. The various terms of reference have also been mentioned in Ext.P7 order. Complaining about the inaction on the part of the committee, to go into the disputed aspects between the petitioner and the third respondent and to finalise the enquiry, he has approached this Court by filing this writ petition.

(3.) THE petitioner has filed a detailed reply affidavit also. On behalf of the University an affidavit has been filed which is dated 08/08/2008. The Registrar of the University is the deponent of the affidavit. It is mentioned in the affidavit that the petitioner has a case that his findings were taken away by the third respondent who is the head of the Instructional Farm, Vellanikkara and the third respondent has made announcement that he invented 'Kerasudha'. It is pointed out that the University has constituted a fresh Enquiry Committee with the same terms as per Order dated 16/02/2008 and 07/04/2008. The Enquiry Committee had found that the research conducted by the petitioner is genuine. The Executive Committee of the University accepted the Enquiry Committees findings and issued an order dated 14/07/2008, and the petitioner was requested to submit result of the research to the University, which he has refused till date. The stand taken in the affidavit is that since the Enquiry Committee constituted by the University had filed a report, which has been accepted by the University, the writ petition has become infructuous.