IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 6TH DECEMBER 2010 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 36295 of 2010(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. MANAGER, ST.DOMINIC'S COLLEGE, KANJIRAPALLY-686 512. 2. DR.SUNNYKUTTY THOMAS, PRINCIPAL, ST.DOMINIC'S COLLEGE, KANJIRAPALLY-686 512. BY ADV. SRI.BABY ISSAC ILLICKAL SRI.ISAAC KURUVILLA ILLIKAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, KOTTAYAM 686 001. 2. VICE CHANCELLOR, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, KOTTAYAM 686 001. 3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR Of COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, KOTTAYAM 686 001. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.A.J.VARGHESE T.A.SHAJI, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.36295 of 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of December, 2010 JUDGMENT The first petitioner is the Manager of St.Dominc's College, Kanjirappally, which is affiliated to Mahatma Gandhi University, the first respondent. According to the first petitioner, the institution has minority status. The management appointed the second petitioner as the Principal of the college, as per Exhibit P1 order of appointment. Exhibit P1 was communicated to the University for approval. The second petitioner was appointed as Drawing & Disbursement Officer pending approval of his appointment by the University. It is stated that University approved the appointment of the second petitioner as Drawing and Disbursing Officer from time time. As per Exhibit P3 order issued by the University, the second petitioner is approved as the Drawing and Disbursment Officer from 15.9.2010 to 14.12.2010. 2. The University issued Exhibit P4 communication to WPC 36295/2010 2 the Manager directing the Manager to submit the relinquishment of the claim of the senior teachers, so as to consider the proposal for approval of appointment of the second petitioner. In Exhibit P4, it is stated that there are 30 other teachers in the college, who are seniors to the second petitioner. The first petitioner replied to Exhibit P4, as per Exhibit P5 dated 10.11.2010, wherein it is stated that the college is a Christian minority institution and hence the management is entitled to appoint duly qualified teacher as the Principal irrespective of seniority. It is stated that there is no need to obtain the relinquishment of claim from the senior teachers. It was requested in Exhibit P5 to expedite the approval of appointment. 3. The reliefs prayed for in the Writ Petition are the following : “(i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order directing the first respondent to approve Exhibit P1 order of appointment of the second petitioner as Principal, forthwith; (ii) declare that Section 59(3) of the Mahatma WPC 36295/2010 3 Gandhi University Act cannot apply to St.Dominic's College, Kanjirappally, being a minority educational institution; (iii) issue such other writ or order as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case.” 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the principles laid down in the decision reported in Secy., Malankara Syrian Catholic College vs. T.Jose and others (2007(1) SCC 386), which was rendered with reference to the relevant provisions in the Kerala University Act, applies to the present case as well. 5. The University has not considered the question of approval of appointment of the second petitioner on the merits. At this stage, I am of the view that Writ Petition is premature. All the contentions put forward by the petitioners will be appropriately considered by the University while considering the question whether the appointment of the second petitioner should WPC 36295/2010 4 be approved. At this stage, I am of the view that the petitioners cannot get the declaration as prayed for in the Writ Petition. A writ of mandamus cannot be issued at this stage directing the first respondent University to approve the appointment of the second petitioner. Leaving open the contentions put forward by the petitioners, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the University to take a final decision in the matter of approval of appointment of the second petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The University shall also pass appropriate orders and extend the period of approval of the second petitioner as Drawing and Disbursement Officer till final orders are passed on the question of approval of appointment of the second petitioner. K.T.SANKARAN JUDGE csl