1. Nomination of Head of Department based on seniority and rotation — Relinquishment of nomination for academic reasons — Dispute over eligibility for subsequent rotational terms under University Statute. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(SC) 134
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam)
Ajay Rastogi, Abhay S. Oka, JJ.
Dr. Jagathy Raj V.P. - Appellant
Versus
Dr. Rajitha Kumar S. & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No(S). 1072 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP(Civil) No(s). 6392 of 2021)
Decided On : 07-02-2022
Advocates appeared:
For the Parties : Mr. Paramjit Singh Patwalia, Sr. Adv. Mr. G. Prakash, Adv. Mr. Jishnu M. L., AOR Ms. Bina Madhavan, Adv. Mr. S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Adv. Ms. Akanksha Mehra Adv Mr. Lakshay Saini, Adv. M/S. Lawyer S Knit & Co, AOR Ms. Malini Poduval, AOR Ms. Babita Sant, Adv. Ms.Harshika Verma, Adv.
For the Parties : Mr. Paramjit Singh Patwalia, Sr. Adv. Mr. G. Prakash, Adv. Mr. Jishnu M. L., AOR Ms. Bina Madhavan, Adv. Mr. S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Adv. Ms. Akanksha Mehra Adv Mr. Lakshay Saini, Adv. M/S. Lawyer S Knit & Co, AOR Ms. Malini Poduval, AOR Ms. Babita Sant, Adv. Ms.Harshika Verma, Adv.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of seniority and fair consideration based on seniority in the appointment process, as interpreted under Statute 18 of the University Act.
Headnote:
Seniority - Appointment of HOD - Statute 18 - [Seniority] - [Appointment of HOD] - [Section 39(1) of the University Act, Statute 18] - The court discussed the interpretation of Statute 18 of the University Act, which mandates the appointment of a Head of the Department (HOD) according to seniority on a rotational basis for a period of three years. The court highlighted the importance of seniority and the right of fair consideration based on seniority in the next rotation, emphasizing that unwillingness at one point in time does not eliminate the right of fair consideration in the next rotation. The court also referred to past precedents where teachers who had initially shown unwillingness were later considered for the HOD position based on their seniority.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant and respondent no. 1, both members of the teaching faculty, were in dispute over the appointment of the Head of the Department (HOD) at the Cochin University of Science and Technology. The appellant, being senior to respondent no. 1, was nominated as HOD, which was challenged by respondent no. 1.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant's seniority and right to fair consideration for the HOD position were not eliminated by his previous unwillingness, as per the interpretation of Statute 18. The court emphasized the importance of seniority and fair consideration based on seniority in the appointment process.
Issues: The main issue was the interpretation of Statute 18 of the University Act, specifically regarding the appointment of the HOD based on seniority and the impact of previous unwillingness on the right to fair consideration.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Statute 18, emphasizing the importance of seniority and fair consideration for the HOD position. The court also considered past precedents where teachers who had initially shown unwillingness were later considered for the HOD position based on their seniority.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, quashing and setting aside the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court, emphasizing the importance of seniority and fair consideration for the HOD position.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether relinquishment of a rotational nomination for academic reasons constitutes a permanent waiver of the right to be considered for future nominations under the applicable statute. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 )
3. Statute 18 contains no prohibition against future consideration after temporary relinquishment; University practice prioritizes academic research and respects seniority in subsequent rotations. (Para 6 , 9 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 )
4. Temporary relinquishment of a rotational appointment for academic reasons does not permanently extinguish the right to consideration; long-standing administrative practice should be upheld if not contrary to law. (Para 22 , 24 )
5. Appeal allowed — Judgment of the Division Bench quashed and set aside. (Para 25 , 26 )
6. Does relinquishing a rotational appointment for academic reasons permanently bar a person from future nominations?
No. The court held that relinquishment for academic reasons at a specific point in time does not deprive a teacher of the right to be considered for appointment when a subsequent rotational term becomes due, provided there is no express prohibition in the governing statute. (Para 22 )
7. How should courts treat long-standing administrative practices when interpreting statutory provisions?
If a statutory provision allows for multiple interpretations, a past practice followed over a long period should be given precedence and not be interfered with by courts, provided the practice is not contrary to law. (Para 23 , 24 )
8. What is the effect of seniority in rotational appointments when a senior candidate has previously declined the post?
Seniority continues to be a primary consideration. If a senior candidate declines a turn for academic reasons, they may still be considered in the next rotation to avoid disrupting research and to maintain the seniority-based rotational system. (Para 6 , 20 , 22 )
JUDGMENT :
Rastogi, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The instant appeal has been preferred assailing the judgment dated 8th April 2021 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam setting aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 1st March, 2021 and directing the Cochin University of Science and Technology to nominate respondent no. 1 as Head of the Department (in short “HOD”)/Director of School of Management Studies of Cochin University.
3. The relevant facts in brief culled out from the record are that both the appellant and respondent no. 1 are members of the teaching faculty and the appellant is senior to respondent no. 1 as the appellant became Professor in April 2009, whereas respondent no. 1 on 1st October, 2013. Even otherwise, the seniority of the appellant qua respondent no. 1 is not in dispute.
4. In terms of Section 39(1) of the University Act, the Government of Kerala framed its Statute. That Statute 18 envisages the appointment of a Director/HOD. For appointment of the Director/HOD, the Syndicate shall nominate a teacher not below the rank of an Associate Professor with Ph.D or an equivalent post, as prescribed by UGC Regulations or Regulations based on seniority on a rotational basis for a period of three years. One Dr. Moli P. Koshy, the senior Professor in the School of Management was nominated by order dated 15th July, 2015 as HOD/Director of the School of Management Studies. He was relieved from the post of Director on attaining the age of superannuation with effect from 6th December, 2017. The appellant, who was the next senior most Professor in queue, was eligible to be nominated by rotation as HOD. However, vide communication dated 18th July 2017, the appellant expressed his unwillingness because of his preoccupation in teaching and research. Taking into consideration the unwillingness expressed by the appellant at the given point of time, the next eligible Professor Dr. Mavoothu D. was nominated as Director/HOD by an Order dated 23rd November 2017 for a period of three years with effect from 7th December, 2017.
5. Before the term of Dr. Mavoothu D. of three years was going to expire, the appellant showed his willingness at that stage to consider him for appointment as Director/HOD and communicated the same to the Registrar of the University vide letter dated 26th June, 2020. At the same time, respondent no. 1 who was next to the appellant in seniority equally protested the claim of the appellant by a letter dated 3rd November, 2020.
6. The Syndicate of the University in its meeting held on 20th November, 2020, after taking note of Statute 18 (Agenda Item No. 681.18) observed that the relinquishment made by the appellant was specific to the nomination after the term of Dr. Moly P. Koshy and that was the reason Dr. Mavoothu D. was nominated for the post of HOD/Director. Taking note of Statute 18, the rotation begins according to seniority and not at the point at which earlier nomination was made. Hence, it is the appellant who has to be considered first and also noticed the number of precedents in the University where seniority was given preference and senior professors were nominated as HOD after they relinquished their actual chance. The reason behind is that the University gives paramount importance to academic and research work and doesn’t want to disrupt the academic and research work of a senior Professor when his turn arises but intend to nominate the teacher after those activities are over, and accordingly recommended the name of the appellant to be appointed as HOD.
7. Pursuant to the recommendations made by the Syndicate in its meeting held on 20th November, 2020, the appellant was nominated as HOD for a period of three years by Order dated 27th November, 2020 and that became the subject matter of challenge by filing of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the learned Single Judge of the High Court at the instance of respondent no. 1.
8. It reveals from t
