2016 Supreme(Ker) 581
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A.K. JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.
SUNIL KUMAR. P – Petitioner
Versus
COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARDTHRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY and Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C).NO.15588 OF 2015 (W) & W.P.(C).NO.16417 OF 2016 (B)
Decided On : 17-10-2016
For the Petitioner: SRI. K. JAJU BABU, SMT. M.U. VIJAYALAKSHMI
For the Respondent: SRI. SANTHOSH MATHEW, DR. GEORGE ABRAHAM, SRI. P.C. SASIDHARAN
Headnote:
Service Law - Masters Degree in a subject relevant to Zoology, for considering the appointment - Qualification for the post of Assistant Professor (Zoology) - Eligibility criteria - Held, phrase used in the Regulations is "a Masters Degree in a relevant subject", a Masters Degree in Mariculture must, in the absence of any material to suggest to the contrary, be seen as a Masters Degree in a subject relevant to Zoology, for considering the candidature of the petitioner to the post of Assistant Professor in Zoology. This is more so when even an expert body like the Selection Committee did not disqualify the petitioner
The facts and sequence of events in these writ petitions bring to the fore the travails of an exasperated litigant who applied for the post of Assistant Professor in Zoology in the Kerala Varma College, Thrissur. The College falls under the management of the Cochin Devaswom Board whose conduct during the course of this litigation has been deplorable, to say the least. Despite an interim order passed by this Court on 27.5.2015, to provisionally appoint the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.15588/2015 as Assistant Professor in Zoology with effect from 1.6.2015, the Board persisted with its adamant attitude and ensured that the petitioner did not enjoy the fruits of the interim order passed by this Court. While this Court is not against, a litigant challenging the legality of orders passed by it before an appellate forum, it would certainly frown upon those who resort to dilatory tactics to avoid compliance with orders that have attained finality. Such has been the conduct of the Board, despite the indulgence and patience shown to it by this Court while entertaining petitions filed by it seeking modification of earlier orders passed against it. It is not that this Court is unaware of the discretion it has to refuse to hear, on merits, the case of a party violating orders passed by the court but it was felt, and on hindsight naively, that the respondent Board would rise to the levels of magnanimity and dignity expected of a statutory authority.
2. The brief facts necessary for a disposal of these writ petitions may now be noticed;
The petitioner in W.P(C).No.15588/2015 had, in response to Ext.P1 Notification issued by the respondents, applied for the post of Assistant Professor in Zoology. On conclusion of the selection process, Ext.P2 rank list was finalized wherein the writ petitioner was ranked as No.4. The candidates mentioned against Sl. Nos.1 to 3 in the said rank list were appointed to vacancies that arose prior to 31.05.2015. It is the case of the writ petitioner that he had to be accommodated to a vacancy that arose prior to 01.06.2015, which vacancy arose in the subject of Zoology. By an interim order dated 27.05.2015, this Court directed the respondents to provisionally appoint the writ petitioner as Assistant Professor in Zoology with effect from 01.06.2015. Although, the respondents filed I.A.No.7608 of 2015 for vacating the interim order dated 27.05.2015, this Court declined to vary the interim order except for clarifying that the appointment made would be provisional, and that the vacancy to which the appointment was to be made was one that arose prior to 01.06.2015. Aggrieved by the said order dated 02.07.2015, the petitioner filed W.A.No.1637 of 2015, wherein it was contended that the writ petitioner's name did not figure in the rank list that was relevant for the purposes of making the appointments to vacancies that arose in the College in question prior to 01.06.2015. The Division Bench considered the said submission raised on behalf of the respondent Board and College and, after noting the submissions made on behalf of the Calicut University, that the only rank list that was received by them was Ext.P2 in which the writ petitioner was shown at Sl.No.4, the Division Bench perused the files that were produced by the learned Standing counsel for the Calicut University and found that in the rank list that was submitted before the University, the writ petitioner was shown against Sl.No.4. Taking note of the said factual position, the Division Bench declined to interfere with the interim order passed by this Court and dismissed the writ appeal. The respondent Board, thereafter, carried the matter before the Supreme Court through S.L.P.No.23677 of 2015. The said S.L.P was premised on the contention that the Division Bench had committed an error of fact in recording paragraph (5) of the judgment dated 05.08.2015 in W.A.No.1637 of 2015. The Supreme Court did not deem it necessary to interfere in the matter, and proceeded