IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2011 / 27TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 1787 of 2011(W) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- DR.S.THAJUDEEN, CO-ORDINATOR OF ECONOMICS (READER) INSTITUTE OF DISTANCE EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, KARIAVATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 034. BY ADVS. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. SMT.POOJA SURENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA REP BY ITS REGISTRAR, KARIAVATTOM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 034. 2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, KARIAVATTOM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 034. 3. THE DIRECTOR INSTITUTE OF DISTANCE EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, KARIAVATTOM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 034. 4. SRI.P.SUDHAKARAN, LECTURER DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS, INSTITUTE OF DISTANCE EDUCATION, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, KARIAVATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 034. R1-3 BY ADV. SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR R4 BY ADV. SRI.T.A.SHAJI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs W.P.(C). NO. 1787/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25/03/2010 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P2: COPY OF THE ATTENDANCE REGISTER OF THE INSTITUTE OF DISTANCE EDUCATION, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA. P3: COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF DIARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA FOR THE YEAR 2011. P4: COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN TO THE PETITIONER UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P5: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 04/05/2010 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P6: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28/10/2010 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P7: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12/01/2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P8: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 16/03/2011 SENT BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P9: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 23/09/1998 IN O.P. NO.12979/1997 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R4(a):COPY OF THE UNIVERSITY ORDER NO. FIN.III.1.1050/2010 DATED 01/06/2010. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.1787/2011-W ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 18 th day of August, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner, who is working as Reader in the Institution of Distance Education as well as Co- ordinator of Economics is aggrieved by the order designating the fourth respondent as Co-ordinator, who is working as Lecturer in Department of Economics. 2. The respondents have filed counter affidavits and the petitioner has filed a reply affidavit also. By interim order dated 19/01/2011, this Court passed an order of stay which has been extended from time to time. 3. The petitioner's case is the following: He was appointed as Reader by the first respondent as per Ext.P1 Order. Under Chapter 3 of the relevant Statute, namely, the Kerala University First Statute 1977 posts of Professor, Reader and Lecturer have been created and under the University Grants Commission Scheme the different categories of posts conceived are Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and Professor. W.P.(C). No.1787/2011 -:2:- It is pointed out that the U.G.C Scheme has not been implemented in the first respondent-University by amending the Statute. As far as the post of Reader is concerned, persons should possess the qualification of Ph.D which the petitioner is having. 4. Ext.P2 is the copy of the attendance register which will show that the petitioner is working as Reader whereas, the fourth respondent is working as Lecturer. The petitioner mainly contends that he is having higher responsibilities and going by the designation, Reader should be treated as senior to Lecturer in the matter of appointment of Co-ordinator. 5. The stand taken by the University, going by the counter affidavit is that the fourth respondent was appointed as Lecturer and is having more length of service than the petitioner and, therefore, he is senior to the petitioner. The petitioner is given placement as Reader reckoning his previous service as per Ext.P1 order. In the Institute of Distance Education, the sanctioned posts of teachers is only that of Lecturers (Assistant Professors). These Lecturers have been placed in the Higher Cadre as per W.P.(C). No.1787/2011 -:3:- the Career Advancement Scheme. It is pointed out that based on the complaint from the fourth respondent, the present decision is taken by the Vice Chancellor. Initially, as per Ext.P6 order, the third respondent appointed the petitioner as the Co-ordinator and when this was brought to the notice of the second respondent, Ext.P7 order was passed appointing the fourth respondent as the Co-ordinator. The position of Co-ordinator is not akin to the post of the Head of the Department contemplated under Chapter 3, Statute 18 of the Kerala University First Statutes, 1977 and the same is not a statutory post but only adopted for administrative convenience and the senior most faculty of the subject concerned is designated as Co-ordinator. 6. Going by the detailed counter affidavit filed by the fourth respondent which disputes the claims of the petitioner, the sum and substance of the contentions therein is that as per the date of appointment in Institute of Distance Education service, the fourth respondent is senior as he joined service on 11/06/1980 and the petitioner was appointed as Lecturer W.P.(C). No.1787/2011 -:4:- only from 31/01/2008 but was given placement under the Career Advancement Scheme as Reader. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the light of Chapter 3 of the Kerala University First Statutes 1977 it can be seen that all the three posts have been created and, therefore, the contentions raised by the respondents that only the post of Lecturer is available in the Department is not correct. It is further pointed out that the conferment of the status of Reader under the U.G.C Scheme also indicates that same is after recognising his right based on qualification as well as other criteria and the same naturally vests all duties and responsibilities of a higher nature as far as the petitioner is concerned. Therefore, the fourth respondent cannot claim equal status and naturally thereby, the fourth respondent cannot claim for a posting as a Co-ordinator. This is answered by the learned counsel for the fourth respondent by submitting that the U.G.C Scheme is only one giving a placement for various persons for monetary purposes and that will not confer any right for claiming any status conferring W.P.(C). No.1787/2011 -:5:- higher duties or responsibilities. Therefore, it is contended that the substantive post being the post of Lecturer, what is relevant is the seniority in the said post and that alone has been recognised by the Vice Chancellor and, therefore, the decision is not illegal. 8. It is seen from the proceedings that the petitioner was initially designated as Co-ordinator by Ext.P6 and, that was re-designated to the fourth respondent as per Ext.P7 based on the complaint by the fourth respondent. Since various issues have been raised by both the parties, it is only proper that a decision taken by the Vice Chancellor after hearing both sides. Evidently, when the order Ext.P7 was issued, the objections of the petitioner were not invited also. In that view of the matter, I dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: There will be a direction to the Vice Chancellor to hear the petitioner and the fourth respondent and take a fresh decision within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. Till then, the interim order passed by this Court will continue. It is made clear that this Court has not W.P.(C). No.1787/2011 -:6:- expressed anything on the merits of the claim raised by either of the parties. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms