IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2010 / 19TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 17065 of 2009(C) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- SMT.LIZ JACOB LIBRARIAN (UGC) NEWMAN COLLEGE, THODUPUZHA. BY ADV. MR.S.RAMESH BABU. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, ERNAKULAM. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.SANDESH RAJA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/03/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.17065/2009-C: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE PETITIONER DTD. 01/09/2005. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE G.O.(MS).NO.119/04/H. EDN. DTD. 17/09/2004. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE R.2. DTD. 28/01/2006. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 28/01/2006. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE G.O.(P).NO.171/99/H. EDN. DTD. 21/12/1999. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 14/08/2006 IN W.P.(C).NO.21540/06. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 27/09/2006. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 08/01/2008 IN W.P.(C).NO.10583/07. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 01/12/2008 IN W.P.(C).NO.8166/08. EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE G.O.(MS).NO.50/08/H. EDN. DTD. 09/05/2008. EXT.P.11: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 26/03/2009 PASSED BY THE R.2. EXT.P.12: COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE COMMITTEE IN THE SELECTION OF LIBRARIAN, DTD. 27/08/2005. EXT.P.13: COPY OF THE ORDER APPROVING THE APPOINTMENT OF LIBRARIAN GRADE -I IN THE ST. THOMAS COLLEGE, RANNI. EXT.P.14: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION FROM THE PRINCIPAL OF THE COLLEGE. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. S. SIRI JAGAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 17065 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 10th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is working as Librarian (UGC) in the Newman College, Thodupuzha, which is an aided college affiliated to the M.G. University. She was appointed pursuant to a selection made by a Selection Committee constituted by the Manager of the college, on 27.08.2005. The petitioner's grievance in this writ petition is that her appointment has not be approved. The reason for non-approval is that there are 42 non-teaching staff rendered surplus under the same management, who have been accommodated against supernumerary posts and until all the supernumerary staff have been accommodated against regular vacancy no fresh appointments can be made is the ground on which the approval of the appointment of the petitioner has been refused. It is under the above W.P.(C)No. 17065 of 2009 -2- circumstances the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: (1) To issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records leading upto Exhibit P11 and quash the same; (2) To declare that the petitioner is entitled and eligible to obtain approval for her appointment as Librarian (UGC) under the Corporate Educational Agency of the Diocese of Kothamangalam pursuant to Exhibit P1 and is entitled to all service benefits including monetary benefits from the date of such appointment. (3) To issue a writ of mandamus commanding the 2nd respondent as also respondents 1 and 3 to forthwith grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner under Ext.P1 with all consequential benefits, both service and monetary. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that as per the staff pattern adopted by the Government for aided colleges, by Ext.P2, appointment of a Librarian qualified as per the norms of the UGC is mandatory in all colleges which have been brought under the UGC Scheme and since there is no other Librarian qualified as per the norms of the UGC the respondents are bound to approve the petitioner's appointment. 3. The learned Government Pleader would contend that although there is no Librarian in Newman College W.P.(C)No. 17065 of 2009 -3- having UGC qualifications, there is one Grade-IV Librarian having qualifications prescribed for the post of Librarian Grade-IV, although his qualifications are not as per UGC norms. He submits that in view of Ext.P8 judgment, where there are some technically qualified staff available, then until all the supernumerary staff are accommodated against regular vacancies no fresh appointments can be made. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. Ext.P2 is the revised staff pattern of non-teaching staff for aided colleges prescribed by the Government on 17.09.2004. Clause 12 thereof reads thus: The present grading system of Colleges Libraries will be abolished. All Colleges should have qualified Librarians. Bachelor Degree in Library and Information Science will be prescribed as minimum qualification for filling up of the post of College Librarian. In all “A” grade Colleges, and other Colleges getting UGC grant for development of Library, one Librarian must possess the academic qualification, and must be given the pay scale and service conditions as prescribed by UGC. The number of Librarians shall not exceed the number fixed vide paras 2 to 5 ante. (underlining supplied) In Ext.P8 judgment, in paragraph 3, I have held thus: 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. It is true that as per the Government orders relied on by the W.P.(C)No. 17065 of 2009 -4- respondents, in view of Ext.P8 staff fixation order no new appointments could have been made. Only after the existing persons holding supernumerary posts have been absorbed in regular service fresh appointments can be resorted to. But Ext.P11 order does not take into account a situation where among the supernumerary staff available there are no qualified persons to be accommodated in particular post, especially when that posts requires technical expertise. Going by Ext.P8 staff pattern there cannot be no doubt that there is one post of mechanic. Ext.P12 proves that there is no person among the existing non-teaching staff who is qualified for carrying out the functions of a mechanic. Therefore, Ext.P11 Government Order cannot be put into practice in the case of a post of mechanic in the college of the 1st petitioner. Ext.P11 does not envisage such a situation. A college is meant for teaching students and any college where there are chemistry and physics departments, the laboratories have to be function. The laboratories cannot function efficiently without a mechanic. There is no person qualified for being accommodated in the post of mechanic in the college among the existing supernumerary staff. Therefore, if the standards of education has to be suitably maintained, Ext.p11 order cannot be put into practice at least in the post of mechanic in the 1st petitioner 's college. Therefore, I am of the opinion that without going into the validity of Ext.P11, the same should be read down to mean that in respect of posts for accommodation in which there are no qualified hands among the supernumerary posts, fresh appointments can be made. Viewed in that manner in the absence of any person qualified to hold that post in the 1st petitioner's college, the 2nd petitioner's appointment is liable to be approved. 5. I am of the opinion that in view of Clause 12 Ext.P2 my judgment Ext.P8 squarely applies to the post of Librarian also. In the interest of standards of education in colleges it is necessary that there is at least one UGC qualified Librarian even going by Ext.P2 Government order. That being so, the petitioner being the only UGC qualified W.P.(C)No. 17065 of 2009 -5- Librarian appointed in the college, notwithstanding the fact that there are other supernumerary Librarians, I do not think that approval can be denied to the petitioner's appointment. 6. The learned Government Pleader would take another contention that the selection committee which selected the petitioner did not contain nominees of the Government and the University. In answer to the same the petitioner has produced Ext.P12 minutes of the Selection Committee which has been signed both nominees of the Government as well as the subject expert nominated by the University. The counsel for the petitioner would further contend that nominees were so nominated pursuant to directions from this court. In view of the same, I do not find any merit in that contention also. In the above circumstances Ext.P11 by which the approval has been refused to the petitioner's appointment is hereby quashed. The 2nd respondent is directed to approve the appointment W.P.(C)No. 17065 of 2009 -6- of the petitioner. Orders in this regard shall be passed and arrears of salary disbursed to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE shg/