Back
1980 Supreme(Ker) 161
Judges : P.SUBRAMONIAN POTI
MOTHER ANASTHASIA - Appellant
Versus
UNIVERSITY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL - Respondent
Case No : O.P. No. 868 of 1977, 4934 of 1976
Decided On : 08/19/1980
Advocates Appeared :
M.I. Joseph; For Petitioner M. Ramachandran; U.K. Ramakrishnan; Government Pleader; For Respondents
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and applicability of S.57(6) of the Calicut University Act, and the distinction between automatic cessation of services and discharge for any reason.
Headnote:
discharge - Calicut University Act - S.57(6) - The court considered the validity of S.57(6) of the Calicut University Act, which provides preferential claim to teachers discharged from a private college for future appointments. The court interpreted the section and held that it does not apply to teachers whose services cease by the period running out, as it constitutes an automatic cessation rather than a discharge for any reason. The court also contrasted the section with relevant rules and previous provisions, and distinguished it from a Supreme Court decision on a similar provision in the Industrial Disputes Act. The court quashed the orders under challenge and allowed the petitions, while urging the Legislature to consider the potential hardships caused by the provision.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, the Superior General of a religious congregation, challenged the appointment of a lecturer in a college affiliated to the Calicut University, based on the preferential claim under S.57(6) of the Calicut University Act. The validity of the section was also under challenge as violative of Art.30(1) of the Constitution.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that S.57(6) does not apply to teachers whose services cease by the period running out, as it constitutes an automatic cessation rather than a discharge for any reason. The court also quashed the orders under challenge and allowed the petitions, while urging the Legislature to consider the potential hardships caused by the provision.
Issues: The issues involved the interpretation and applicability of S.57(6) of the Calicut University Act, as well as its validity in light of Art.30(1) of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted S.57(6) and held that it does not apply to teachers whose services cease by the period running out, as it constitutes an automatic cessation rather than a discharge for any reason. The court also contrasted the section with relevant rules and previous provisions, and distinguished it from a Supreme Court decision on a similar provision in the Industrial Disputes Act.
Final Decision: The court quashed the orders under challenge and allowed the petitions, while urging the Legislature to consider the potential hardships caused by the provision.
1. The petitioner in O.P. No. 868 of 1977 and the first petitioner in O. P. No. 4934 of 1976 are the same. These petitions involve the same question and therefore are being disposed of by a common judgment. A learned single judge of this Court directed O.P. No. 868 of 1977 to be beard by a larger Bench at a time when the question of validity of a section could be heard only by a Bench of five judges, since the validity of the Calicut University Act was under challenge. Subsequently when that bar was removed, the matter has been placed before a Division Bench to be heard along with O.P. No. 4934 of 1976. The parties will be referred to in this judgment as they are arrayed in O.P. No. 868 of 1977. 2nd petitioner in O.P. No. 4934 of 1976 is the 4th respondent in this OP.
2. The petitioner is the Superior General of a religious congregation of Mannuthy known as "Holy Family Congregation". The said congregation is running a first grade college exclusively for women situated at Irinjalakuda affiliated to the University of Kerala. After the coming into being of the Calicut University, this college came under it by virtue of S.51 of the Calicut University Act (for short, the Act). A temporary leave vacancy arose in that college, to fill which vacancy, the educational agency took out an advertisement inviting applications from duly qualified persons. According to an agreement between the Educational agency and the Government, even for temporary vacancies appointment can be made only from a select list prepared by the Selection Committee. Only two candidates appeared before the Selection Committee. The first rank-holder was a male and the second, the 2nd respondent herein, a female. The 2nd respondent was appointed in the leave vacancy for a period from 2-11974 to 30 31974 On the expiry of the leave vacancy on 30 31974, the permanent lecturer assumed charge. Subsequently, in the year 1976 a permanent Vacancy arose in the college. The educational agency advertised the vacancy inviting applications from qualified, hands The 2nd respondent submitted her application in response to the advertisement on 14/5/1976. On 16 51976 she submitted a petition with the request that she be appointed as a Junior Lecturer on the strength of her preferential claim based on S.57 (6) of the Act. The Educational agency constituted a Selection Committee, who asked the applicants to appear before it. Out of 27 applicants, 25 including the 2nd respondent appeared before the Selection Committee. The additional 4th respondent, who ranked first, in the list, was selected and the 2nd respondent was informed that she was not included in the select list. She thereupon fired an appeal before the Calicut University Appellate Tribunal, Trivandrum, under S.57 (10) of the Act and obtained an injunction against grant of approval of the appointment of the fourth respondent. The University thereupon refused to grant approval as per Ext. P1 order which is under challenge in O.P. No. 4934 of 1976. Subsequently, the injunction order was Vacated and the appeal was allowed by Ext. P5 order. This order is challenged in this writ petition. The validity of S.57 (6) of the Act is under challenge in both the writ petitions as being violative of Art.30 (1) of the, Constitution.
3. The first respondent is the University Appellate Tribunal and the 3rd respondent the State of Kerala. The 2nd respondent and the State have a common case. According to them, S.57 (6) provides for preferential claim to teachers who had worked even in a temporary vacancy, for future vacancies. The order of the Appellate Tribunal is sought to be justified relying on this section.
4. Though S.57 (6) is challenged as violative of Art.30 (1) of the Constitution, we need go into this challenge only if it becomes necessary. We proceed to consider the claim of the 2nd respondent based on S.57 (6) first.
5. We shall read S.57 (6) of the Act:
"Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (1) and (4) a teache
