IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 2ND MARCH 2009 / 11TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 26056 of 2008(B) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- K.JACOB MATHEW, PRINCIPAL, HANEEFAKUNJU MEMORIAL COLLEGE OF EDUCATION, UMAYANALLOOR, KOLLAM. BY ADV. MR.BABU VARGHESE. RESPONDENT: ---------------------- THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY BUILDINGS, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, SC, KERALA UTY., THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/03/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 26056 of 2008 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 2nd day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner was the Principal of the Government College of Teacher Education, Thiruvananthapuram. In 2006, election to the Senate of the respondent University was held when the petitioner contested and was elected. Accordingly, the Senate was reconstituted with effect from 27/3/2006, as per Exhibit P1 proceedings. It should also be stated that as a member of the Senate, petitioner got himself elected to the Syndicate also. 2. It is stated that in terms of their conditions of service, Principals of the Government Colleges have to retire from service on attaining 55 years. Accordingly, on attaining the age of superannuation, the petitioner retired from service on 31/05/2008 and immediately thereafter, with effect from 2/06/2008, he got himself appointed as the Principal of M/s. Haneefakunju Memorial College of Teacher Education, Kollam. Despite this, petitioner apprehended that he will be prevented from continuing as a member of the Senate and on that basis, this writ petition was filed praying for orders enabling him to continue as a member of the Senate. During the pendency of the writ petition, University issued W.P.(C) No. 26056 /2008 2 Exhibit P3 communication dated 4/9/2008 informing the petitioner that consequent to his retirement from service on superannuation on 31/5/2008, in view of the provisions of the Kerala University Act, 1974 and the Statutes framed there under, petitioner has ceased to be a member of the Senate/Syndicate of the University. Thereupon, the writ petition was amended and Exhibit P3 also has been challenged. 3. The contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that there is only a single electorate for Principals for election to the Senate of the University, for filling up the seven seats reserved for Principals of the affiliated colleges and that irrespective of his retirement from the Government College of Teacher Education, he still continues as Principal of an affiliated college and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to continue his membership in the Senate and in the Syndicate. 4. On the other hand, the University contends that in terms of Section 17(1), out of seven Principals to be elected to the Senate, at least two shall be from the Principals of Government Colleges. According to them, election was held W.P.(C) No. 26056 /2008 3 following the method of proportionate representation and in view of the number of votes secured by the petitioner, he was elected to one of the two seats reserved for Principals of Government Colleges. It is stated that on his retirement with effect from 31/05/2008, the petitioner has ceased to be Principal of a Government College. It is stated that in view of the provisions contained in Section 18 (3) of the Kerala University Act, since the petitioner has been elected to the Senate, he being the Principal of the Government College of Teacher Education, unless the petitioner is again appointed to the post of Principal of a Government College, he is ineligible to retain his membership in the Senate. The counsel for the University also pointed out that petitioner’s election to the Syndicate was also in terms of section 21A of the Kerala University Act, to one of the seats reserved for Principals of Government Colleges. 5. In the light of the contentions raised by both parties, the question that arises for consideration is whether in view of the provisions contained in Sections 17 and 18(3) of the Kerala University Act, the petitioner is entitled to retain his membership W.P.(C) No. 26056 /2008 4 in the Senate of the respondent University even after retirement as the Principal of Government College of Teacher Education, Thiruvananthapuram. 6. Admittedly, the petitioner was the Principal of the Government College of Teacher Education and it was during that period he was elected to the Senate of the University. Constitution of the Senate is governed by Section 17 of the Act. Section 17(1) shows that among the members of Senate, seven of them are elected from the Principal's and out of the seven so elected, two shall be from among the Principals of Government Colleges. 7. Although it is the case of the petitioner that there is only one electoral college for Principals and he is entitled to continue for the full term of 4 years, the contention of the University is that the petitioner was elected to one of the two seats reserved for the Principals of the Government Colleges. On the materials produced, I am inclined to agree with the counsel for the University. This is for the reason that even the petitioner has no case that apart from him, there were two other members W.P.(C) No. 26056 /2008 5 representing the Principals of the Government Colleges in the seats reserved to them as per Section 17(1) of the Act. Once it is taken that the petitioner was elected as the Principal of a Government College into one of the seats reserved to that category, the question is whether he is entitled to continue in the Senate even after his retirement from the post of Principal of the Government College on 31/05/2008. This claim of the petitioner is to be examined in terms of section 18(3) of the Act, which reads as under; “18(3): Every member of the Senate, other than ex- officio and life members, shall, subject to the provisions of this Act and the Statutes, hold office until the next reconstitution of the Senate: Provided that no member nominated or elected in his capacity as a member of a particular body or as the holder of a particular office shall hold office for a longer period than three months after he has ceased to be such member or holder of such office, unless in the meanwhile he again becomes a member of that electorate:” W.P.(C) No. 26056 /2008 6 8. From the proviso to Section 18(3), it is evident that if a person is elected as the holder of a particular office, once he ceases to hold that office, unless, he again becomes a member of that electorate within three months thereafter, he is ineligible to continue in the elected post. In this case, I have already accepted the contention of the University that the petitioner was elected to the Senate, as the Principal of the Government College. Therefore, it was as holder of the post of Principal of the Government College that the petitioner got elected to the Senate. Admittedly, he retired from that post on 31/05/2008 and on his retirement, got appointed as the Principal of a Self financing college, and not that of a Government College. Therefore, it cannot be contended that he again became a member of the electorate, viz, the Principal of Government Colleges. 9. Counsel for the petitioner contended that since the word electorate is used in the proviso to Section 18(3) and as there is only one electorate for Principals, he is entitled to retain his membership in the Senate, since the petitioner is still a W.P.(C) No. 26056 /2008 7 Principal of an affiliated College. I am afraid, I cannot accept this contention. If this interpretation is accepted, the petitioner who is elected into one of the two seats reserved for Principals of Government College, will on his retirement, become the elected representative of the Principals of affiliated College. Thus, there will be inadequate representation for Principals of Government College and over representation for Principals of the affiliated Colleges. This will therefore, necessarily, upset the numbers specified in Section 17(1) of the Act. This being the position, in my view, petitioner will lose his membership in the Senate on expiry of three months from 31/05/2008. 10. Consequently challenge to Exhibit P3 fails and the prayer to allow the petitioner to function as a member of the Senate, on the strength of election that was held in March 2006 cannot be allowed. Writ petition fails and hence it is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE scm