IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 13TH OCTOBER 2011 / 21ST ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 24510 of 2011(K) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. DR.JOSHY C.L, S/O.C.V. LUIS, 45 YEARS, 'SAROVARAM', CHIRIYANKANDATH HOUSE, PAVARATTY P.O., (SYNDICATE MEMBER OF CALICUT UNIVERSITY) 2. K. VISWANATHAN, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.KRISHNA PILLAI, G-17 QUARTER, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, RAJ BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001, 2. UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-673 635, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. 3. VICE CHANCELLOR (IN CHARGE) UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-673 635. 4. REGISTRAR (IN CHARGE) CALICUT UNIVERSITY, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O., MALAPPURAM DIST., PIN-673 635. 5. P.P. MOHAMMED, B 5 QUARTERS, CALICUT UNIVERSITY POST, P.O. CALICUT UNIVERSITY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-673 635. R1 TO R4 BY ADV. SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW, SC, CALICUT UTY. R5 BY ADV. MR.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/10/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs WP(C).No. 24510 of 2011(K) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE CHANCELLOR DATED 22/06/2011. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE REPORT NO.2752/2005 OF LOK AYUKTHA. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE MEMO ALONG WITH THE COVERING LETTER DATED 30/06/2007. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE MINUTES OF SYNDICATE MEETING AND UNIVERSITY ORDER DATED 19/07/2007. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES WITH STATEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS DATED 13/11/2007. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE COMMITTEE DATED 25/04/2009. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27/08/2009 OF THE UNIVERSITY. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE ADVICE OF THE UNIVERSITY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DATED 13/05/2011. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE CHANCELLOR TO THE REGISTRAR. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 12/06/2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE R1. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 24510 of 2011-K - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 13th day of October, 2011. JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed by the petitioners aggrieved by Ext.P1 order passed by the Chancellor of the University. 2. Ext.P1 order shows that the Chancellor considered a case wherein punishment was imposed by the University against a former Registrar, viz. the fifth respondent herein. The matter was referred to the University Appellate Tribunal, by the Chancellor. After receiving advisory remarks of the Tribunal Ext.P1 order was passed. The operative portion of the order shows that the appeal filed by the fifth respondent was allowed and the punishment awarded was set aside on the finding that the charges are not proved. He was directed to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. 3. When the writ petition came up for admission, learned Standing Counsel for the University raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition and sought time to file a statement. Accordingly, a statement has been filed on behalf of respondents 2 to 4. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing wpc 24510/2011 2 Counsel for the University and learned counsel for the fifth respondent. 5. The writ petition is filed by the petitioners as members of the Syndicate and the Senate of the University. Learned Standing Counsel for the University submitted that merely being members of such bodies, they have no locus standi to maintain the writ petition. In the statement filed by respondents 2 to 4, it is contended that the order passed by the Chancellor can only be challenged by a person aggrieved by the said order and the petitioners in their individual capacity, cannot be said to be persons aggrieved. It is also contended that in the light of the various decisions of the Apex Court taking the view that Public Interest Litigations are not maintainable in service matters, the present writ petition is not maintainable. 6. Therefore, the contention raised is that in a service matter third parties like the petitioners have no role. to challenge the order passed setting aside the punishment. Learned Standing Counsel for the University relied upon a judgment of the Apex Court in Girjesh Shrivastava and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others {(2010) 10 SCC 7070} in that context. Therein, in paragraphs 14 to 19 the question considered was whether a public interest litigation can be maintained in a service matter. It wpc 24510/2011 3 was held that except in the case of quo-warranto, public interest litigation in a service matter is not maintainable. Reliance is placed on the decisions of the Apex Court in Duryodhan Sahu (Dr) v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra {(1998) 7 SCC 273}, Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of W.B. {(2004) 3 SCC 349}, Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra {(2005) 1 SCC 590}, B. Srinivasa Reddy v. Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board Employees' Association {(2006) 11 SCC 731} and Hari Bansh Lal v. Sahodar Prasad Mahto {(2010) 9 SCC 655). Learned Standing Counsel for the University submitted that in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition also, the petitioners have no case that the Syndicate has taken a decision to file the writ petition and they are representing the Syndicate. A reading of the affidavit does not show that the petitioners have such a case. Therefore, evidently the petitioners have filed this writ petition in their individual capacity and not in their official capacity. But in a service matter public interest litigation is not maintainable and therefore the writ petition cannot be said to be maintainable at the hands of the writ petitioners. 7. In a disciplinary proceedings, normally the lis will be between the employer and the officer/employee concerned. A third party cannot have a wpc 24510/2011 4 grievance in such a matter. For that reason also, I find that the present writ petitioners have no locus standi. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/