Back
2005 Supreme(Ker) 362
Judges : S.SIRI JAGAN
M.Bavakutty, Professor - Appellant
Versus
The University of Calicut - Respondent
Case No : OP.No.4081 of 2003
Decided On : 06/21/2005
Advocates Appeared :
For the Petitioner : M.K. Damodaran, Sojan Micheal, Advocates. For the Respondents: R1 to R3, S. Gopakumaran Nair, SC.
Headnote:
Education and University - Calicut University Act 1975 - Section 10(13) -
Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 14 & 21 - "Professor in Library Science" - Removal from service - rule of natural justice - Violated or not -Petitioner challenging his removal from the service of the Calicut university as "Professor in Library Science" by 2nd respondent vice Chancellor of Calicut university by order - 2nd respondent vice Chancellor, invoking his powers under Section 10(13) of Chapter III of Calicut University Act, 1975 - Petitioner entered the service of the 1st respondent University as a deputy Librarian he was selected and appointed as University Librarian in 1987 - University conducted selection to post of Professor in Library Science to which petitioner and two others applied - Selection committee selected petitioner for appointment - Appeals against decision of learned Single Judge, both by petitioner and University - Held, admitted fact that before the was appointed to the post of Professor of Library Science he was holding the post of University Librarian. The University decided to combine these two posts and to post the petitioner to the said combined post - When the Syndicate decided to delink the two posts, the petitioner was allowed to hold the post of Professor of Library Science - At the time of Ext.P14 petitioner was not holding the post pursuant to interim orders of this Court in C.M.P. in W.A. - Much water had flown under the bridge since then - His subsequent appointment by the Syndicate to the combined post changed the character of his appointment - Thereafter when the two posts were delinked he was allowed to hold the post of Professor of Library Science - In any event, University which is the author of all these orders, which were approved at the level of the Syndicate, cannot dispute its authenticity now -pIf the University is allowed to change its stand as and when personnel at the helm changes that well spell doom not only to the employees but to the University itself. Therefore, I hold that the continuance of the petitioner in service in the post of Professor of library Science was perfectly in order and in accordance with law - Therefore Quash the order of the 2nd respondent as also the subsequent ratification of the same by Ext.R1(c) as modified by Ext.P17 - Original petition is allowed.
In this original petition, the petitioner is challenging his removal from the service of the Calicut university as “Professor in Library Science” by the 2nd respondent vice Chancellor of Calicut university by Ext.P14 order. This case has a chequered history as revealed from the facts of the case which are not much in dispute except for some minor variations and are as under.
2. The petitioner entered the service of the 1st respondent University as a deputy Librarian on 28.3.1977. He was selected and appointed as University Librarian in 1987. In 1988, the University conducted a selection to the post of Professor in Library Science to which the petitioner and two others namely M/s. Raju M. Mathew and M. Parameswaran applied. Finding the petitioner to be the lone candidate possessing the requisite qualifications, the screening committee rejected the applications of the other two. The minutes of the screening committee was approved by the Syndicate, which constituted a Selection Committee in accordance with the statutes. The Selection committee selected the petitioner for appointment. Challenging the rejection of his application the said Sri. Raju. M. Mathew approached the University Appellate Tribunal, in appeal the dismissal of which was taken up before this Court in O.P.No.5446/1990. He filed another independent O.P. also as O.P.No.9346/1990. the said Sri. M. Parameswaran also filed O.P.No.9335/90 challenging rejection of his application. A learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the O.Ps holding that the screening committee has no power to reject applications. The learned Single Judge also directed issue of fresh notification in view of amendment of the Regulations prescribing qualifications.
3. Appeals were filed against the decision of the learned Single Judge, both by the petitioner and the University. In the appeal filed by the University namely W.A.No.686/1994 the University moved C.M.P.No.5804/1998 in which a Division Bench of this Court by Ext.P1 order dated 6.11.1998 permitted the University to fill up the post of Professor in Library Science on the basis of the recommendation made by the Selection committee on a provisional basis pending disposal and subject to the final outcome of the appeal. Pursuant thereto, the University appointed the petitioner as Professor in Library Science by Ext.P2 order dated 24.12.1998.
4. Subsequently in W.A. Nos.824/1994 and 488/1994, filed by the University, against the judgment in OP.No.9335 of 1994 filed by Sri. Parameswaran, considering, his request to withdraw the O.P., the appeals were allowed in so far as it affects the interest of Sri. Bavakkutty, the petitioner herein, and the University and dismissed O.P.No.9335/1990.
5. Pursuant to the report of a Sub Committee report on austerity measures the Senate in its meeting held on 18.11.2000, the extract of the minutes of which is Ext.P4, resolved to combine the posts of Professor of Library Science and University Librarian and redesignated the combined post as “Professor of Library Science and University Librarian”. Along with the same in two other departments also posts were so combine and redesignated as a single post. Pursuant to the same, by Ext.P6 order dated 7.12.2000, the petitioner was posted in the post of “Professor of Library Science and University Librarian’, which was also designated as a teaching post by that order. As evidenced by Ext.P7 minutes of its meeting held on 19.06.2001, the syndicate approved the report of the Sub Committee and the posting of the petitioner as the ‘Professor of Library Science and University Librarian’. By Ext.P8, University office Note dated 13.7.2001, it was clarified that ‘as per the orders dated 10.7.2001 of the vice Chancellor, Dr. M. Bawakkutty (petitioner), holding the integrated post of Professor of Library Science and University Librarian, will continue in service up to 60 years of age and needs to retire only on 31.7.2006.’ It was also stated therein that’ these orders a
