Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 22900
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
AMIT RAWAL, J
DR. LIMNARAJ B.P – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C)/28742/2020
S.MUHAMMED HANEEFF, THOMAS ABRAHAM, M.H.ASIF ALI, J.HARIKUMAR, JIMMY GEORGE
Amendments to teacher appointment criteria must comply with government orders, ensuring fairness in selection processes.
Headnote:
Education - Appointment of Teachers - Government Orders - Sections Related - The court emphasized adherence to the government orders and regulations governing teacher appointments, directing reconsideration of cases based on existing selection lists in compliance with the latest government directives.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners challenged the alteration of teacher appointment criteria by the university through a government order, asserting it adversely affected their selection process. They sought directions for reconsideration under recently amended government orders.
Finding of the Court:
The court recognized the validity of government orders related to workload requirements for teaching posts and directed reconsideration of petitioners' cases according to these orders without diving into merit specifics.
Issues: Whether the university's unilateral alteration of teacher appointment criteria violated existing regulations and the implications of government orders on pending petitioners' cases.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that amendments to appointment criteria must follow lawful government directives and that prior selection processes should be honored in reconsidering appointments.
Final Decision: Writ petitions disposed; directions issued for reconsideration of appointment cases as per the amended government orders.
JUDGMENT
[WP(C) Nos.28788/2020, 28742/2020]
During the course of the argument it has been brought to the notice of this Court that this Court had already disposed of three writ petitions (W.P(C).No.13456/20 & connected cases) by judgment dated 15.10.2020, issuing direction to respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioners taking into consideration the Governemnt Orders dated 01.04.2020 and 11.09.2020 in accordance with law within a period of one month.
2. All the petitioners have been issued appointment order and their approval is pending consideration before the University. Petitioners’ case is also covered by the direction No.(iii) of the order dated 11.09.2020 Ext.P11 in W.P(C).28788/20. Counsel for the University submitted that there would be some embargo, but would not be averse in taking a call in view of the Government order ibid.
3. I have heard the counsel for the parties.
4. This Court disposed of the cited writ petitions, noticing the contentions of the parties, with the following judgment:
“This order of mine shall dispose of three writ petitions viz., W.P.(C)No13456/2020, W.P.(C).No. 13479/2020 and W.P.(C).No.15317/2020 which has not been listed but on request of the learned counsel, is ordered to be listed and taken on board which, as per the argument of Sri.S.Muhammed Haneef, learned counsel for the petitioners herein, is to be reconsidered in the light of the order Ext.P9 in W.P.(C).No.13456/2020 dated 11.09.2020.
2. The grievance of the petitioners in short in the present writ petitions are that the selection/appointment and service conditions of teachers in affiliated colleges is being done as per the mandate in the University Act/ Statutes/Regulations/Ordinances of the University and accordingly, notification was issued. The selection process commenced resulting into publication of rank list, which could not be altered unilaterally to the disadvantages of selectees by an executive order. Basically challenge was laid to Ext.P8 order dated 01.04.2020 whereby a new criteria was laid down by holding that in all Aided Arts and Science Colleges in the State, workload of sixteen hours per week was required for sanctioning and filling up regular teaching posts. No regular teaching posts would be allowed for a workload of less than sixteen hours even if there is single faculty subject. Service of Guest lecture alone will be permitted for subjects with a workload of less than sixteen hours.
3. Sri.Mohammad Haneef, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the respondents in the counter affidavit have placed on record notification/Government Order dated 11.09.2020 as Ex.R5(a), also attached with the writ petition as Ext.P9 vide I.A.No.1/2020, whereby the impugned orders dated 1.04.2020 Ext.P8 have been amended and to be implemented with effect from 01.06.2020 only. It was also been made clear that all selection and appointments made from 01.06.2020 in Government and Aided Arts and Science Colleges shall follow the conditions stipulated in the Government Order dated 01.04.2020 and the approvals pending on appointments made between 09.05.2018 to 31.05.2020 by a valid selection committee which should have been constituted as per the existing Government Orders, shall be considered in the light of the Government Order dated 09.05.2018. Clause (3)(i) (iii) (sic) of the Government Order dated 11.09.2020 would be applicable to the petitioners who are included in the rank list Ext.P5, thus urges this Court for issuing directions to the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioners.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 5th respondent Manager/Secretary do not deny the order dated 11.09.2020 Ext.R5(a) and further submits that the college/trust would not be averse in taking a call in view of the Government Order dated 11.09.2020.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, I dispose of these
