Back
2007 Supreme(Online)(KER) 13781
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
K.M.JOSEPH, J
V.V.SATHIMANI – Appellant
Versus
THE PAYYANNUR EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,REP. – Respondent
WP(C)/7339/2005
SRI.M.V.AMARESAN, SRI.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN, SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ, SRI.MOHAMMED MUSTAQUE, SC, KANNUR UTY, SRI.TOJAN J. VATHIKULAM, SRI.K.JAJU BABU, SRI.P.V.MOHANAN, SRI.T.T.MUHAMMED
The court established that under the amended University Acts, a teacher relieved at the end of their term has a right to preferential reappointment in their previous role.
Headnote:
Preferential Claim - Employment - Kannur University Act - [Sections 65(2), 57(6)] - The court interpreted the preferential claim for future appointments under Sections 65(2)(b) and 57(6)(b) of the Kannur University and Calicut University Acts, concluding that the petitioner was entitled to reappointment based on her previous qualifications and claims.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, appointed as Junior Lecturer at a college, claimed a right to future appointment based on her previous service. After her term ended, another candidate was appointed despite her claim over the vacancy, leading her to seek legal recourse for reappointment.
Issues: The key issues included whether the petitioner had a legal right to preferential treatment in appointments under the Kannur and Calicut University Acts and if her previous service entitled her to a claim over subsequent vacancies.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the amended provisions of the University Acts afforded the petitioner the right to claim future appointments based on her previous service, thus overruling the respondents’ position that her appointment status precluded such claims.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, directing reappointment of the petitioner as Lecturer in Chemistry.
JUDGMENT
Case of the petitioner in brief is as follows:
Petitioner was appointed against a leave vacancy of Junior Lecturer in the Department of Chemistry in the first respondent College vide Ext.P1 order of appointment. This was preceded by a selection process under the relevant regulations. Petitioner was appointed on 25.9.1987 pursuant to Ext.P1 and she worked till 15.6.1988. Thereafter a vacancy arose in the same department. She was appointed as per Ext.P2 appointment order dated 31.8.1988. Ext.P2 order of appointment was due to her claim over the vacancy which she acquired by virtue of Ext.P1. She has claim over the next arising vacancy as she had worked as Junior Lecturer for two spells. The first respondent cannot notify the next arising vacancy as the petitioner has a lien over the same, but Ext.P3 notification was issued on 13.12.2003 by the first respondent. One vacancy in Chemistry department is notified. Petitioner has lien. Petitioner made a request before the first respondent seeking reappointment vide Ext.P4. Though first WPC.7339/2005. 2 respondent received Ext.P4, petitioner was not reappointed nor given any reply. Ext.P5 is an order dated 3.7.1997, as per which the Secretary to the Government has inter alia directed that when teachers who have been retrenched for want of vacancies have acquired a right on future appointment as on 24.4.1997 are available they may be appointed in such vacancies on a regular basis. It is stated that the petitioner has in view of Exts.P1 and P2 had acquired a claim as on the cut off date 24.4.1997 as disclosed in Ext.P5. Ext.P6 is the certificate issued by the Principal of the College showing that petitioner has worked for two spells. Ext.P7 is produced to show that the first respondent has given appointment on the basis of lien. It is stated that during the pendency of the writ petition the fourth respondent was appointed in the vacancy of Chemistry Lecturer in disregard to a preferential claim over the post. It is stated to be against Section 65 of Kannur University Act and illegal. Petitioner seeks a direction to the first respondent to grant the petitioner reappointment as Lecturer in the department of Chemistry in Payyannur College against the vacancy notified in Ext.P3, to declare that attempt of the first respondent to WPC.7339/2005. 3 hold fresh selection to the post of Junior Lecturer to the Department of Chemistry in Payyannur College, disregard of the claim of the petitioner over the said vacancy is arbitrary and illegal, to quash the order of appointment of the fourth respondent and to declare that the appointment of the fourth respondent is against law and in disregard of the preferential claim of the petitioner.
2. The third respondent University has filed counter affidavit inter alia stating as follows:
The appointment of the petitioner in two spells in the College of the first respondent was in the M.Phil deputation vacancies. As per the guidelines, for the appointment of the substitute teacher Faculty Improvement Programme deputation vacancies framed in the Kannur University in the line with the decisions of the meeting convened by the Director of Collegiate Education, Thiruvananthapuram the appointed teacher shall have no claim for future appointment. The petitioner, who was Junior Lecturer appointed in the M.Phil deputation vacancy in the period mentioned has enjoyed the claim for future appointment. Some Junior Lecturers in the FIP deputation vacancies in WPC.7339/2005. 4 the said period in certain private affiliated colleges under the University are re-appointed to the permanent post on the basis of their acquired claims and the University has approved their appointments. It is further stated that as per Government Order dated 3.7.1997 it has been made clear that teachers who have been retrenched for want of vacancies and who have already acquired a right on future appointment as on 24.4.1997 are available, they may be appointed in such vacancies on regular vacan
