IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 30TH OCTOBER 2008 / 8TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 31866 of 2008(R) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.JAYANARAYANAN, PRINCIPAL, SREE VIVEKANANDA COLLEGE, KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.D.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, DEVASWOM BOARD BUILDINGS, THRISSUR REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, UNIVERSITY P.O., THENHIPALAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. 3. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. THE CORPORATION MANAGER, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD COLLEGES, DEVASWOM BOARD BUILDINGS, THRISSUR. 7. P.M.REMA, SELECTION GRADE LECTURER, MATHEMATICS DEPARTMENT, SREE KERALA VARMA COLLEGE, THRISSUR. SHRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP, SC FOR COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD. SHRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC FOR THE UNIVERSITY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.31866 of 2008 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 30th day of October, 2008 J U D G M E N T The controversy in this writ petition is regarding the appointment to the post of Principal, Sree Vivekananda College, Kunnamkulam, one of the colleges of the Cochin Devaswom Board. 2. The petitioner, a selection grade lecturer, was appointed as Principal of the aforesaid College with effect from 10/10/2006. That was the subject matter of appeal No.12/2006 before the University Appellate Tribunal. That appeal was filed by one of the lecturers. The Tribunal disposed of the appeal setting aside the appointment of the petitioner and directing that appointment be made in terms of the provisions contained in Section 57(2) of the Calicut University Act. 3. Thereafter, by Ext.P1, willingness of the teachers was called for. The petitioner, the 7th respondent and five WP(C) No.31866/2008 -2- others expressed their willingness. Eventually, according to the petitioner, on 28/10/2008, the 1st respondent resolved to appoint the 7th respondent. Though the fact that the 7th respondent is the senior most among the applicants is not in dispute, the petitioner contends that the said resolution was passed without any selection process and it is on that ground the decision to promote the 7th respondent is challenged. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the decision in Secretary, Malankara Syrian Catholic College Vs. T.Jose and Others, (2007 (1) SCC 386) and contends that there should be a process of selection before anybody is decided to be appointed as the principal. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent contends that appointment is made in terms of Section 57 of the Calicut University Act, and that, if the post is to be filled up by promotion, seniority cum fitness is the method to be followed. According to him, since all the applicants were fit to be promoted in accordance with the WP(C) No.31866/2008 -3- Rule, the senior most among them was resolved to be promoted. The learned counsel also submits that this position is covered by a Full Bench decision of this Court in Suresh Vs. Manager, SNM College, (2003(3) KLT 839). The learned counsel for the University also points out that the Rule contemplates promotion by seniority cum fitness. 5. Having heard both sides, I am not inclined to accept the case of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Admittedly, the Rule provides that if the post of Principal is to be filled up by promotion, the seniority cum fitness is the method to be followed. If that Rule is to be applied among the fit candidates, who have applied in response to the notification, promotion should be effected based on seniority. In this case, admittedly, the 7th respondent who is resolved to be promoted, is the senior most applicant. If that be so, the decision of the 1st respondent to promote the 7th respondent cannot be faulted. 6. In so far as the judgment relied on by the learned WP(C) No.31866/2008 -4- counsel for the petitioner is concerned, by that judgment, the Apex Court has held that the provisions of Section 57 of the M.G.University Act which corresponds to Section 57(2) of the Calicut University Act is inapplicable in so far as the minority institutions are concerned, and the Apex Court has held that minority institutions have the freedom to appoint anyone of the candidates of their choice, who can efficiently discharge the duties of the office of the Principal. This judgment does not lay down the principle that for appointing Principal of a College, even in spite of Section 57(2) of the Calicut University Act, there has to be a process of selection. Therefore, the principle laid down in that judgment cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case. Therefore, the writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg