IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2009 / 27TH JYAISHTA 1931 WA.No. 1234 of 2009() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.7033/2009 Dated 30/03/2009 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN W.P.(C): -------------- DR.C.V.THOMA, READER, DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH, ST.STEPHEN'S COLLEGE, UZHAVOOR, KOTTAYAM, RESIDING AT CHERUKARA KUNNEL, KONDOOR VILLAGE, KALAKETTY P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL SMT.P.S.PREETHA SRI.SAIJU S. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT IN W.P.(C): --------------- THE MAHATMA GHANDHI UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM. ADDL.R2: UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION, BEHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG, NEW DELHI - 110 002, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. R3: THE KERALA UNIVERSITY REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTAHPURAM. R4: THE VICE CHANCELLOR, MAHATMA GHANDHI UNIVERSITY, KOTTAYAM. (ADDL.RESPONDENTS R2 TO R4 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DT.17.6.2009 IN I.A.NO.540/2009) SRI.T.A.SHAJI, SC, FOR RI. SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, SC FOR KERALA UNIVERSITY. SRI.S.KRISHNA MOORTHY SC FOR UGC. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ------------------------------ W.A. No.1234 OF 2009 ------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. The appellant is the writ petitioner. He was an applicant for the post of Assistant Director, Department of Adult Continuing and Extension Education, when the Mahatma Gandhi University invited applications for the said post. Ext.P6 dated 23.1.2009 is the notification issued by the Mahatma Gandhi University. Going by Ext.P6 notification, the appellant does not have the prescribed qualifications. He submits, he has the qualifications prescribed for the said post by the Kerala University. By virtue of Section 99(2) of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act, 1985, the prescription made by the Kerala University will be applicable to the Mahatma Gandhi University also. Therefore, Ext.P6 to the extent, it is at variance with the prescription of qualifications for the aforementioned post made by the Kerala University, is illegal. The learned Single Judge noted that the Statues and Ordinances in force, when the Mahatma Gandhi University Act came into force did not mention about the post of Assistant Director in the W.A.No.1234/2009 2 aforementioned subject. It is not a post included in the schedule of the Ordinances of the Kerala University. Therefore, the prescription made by the Mahatma Gandhi University, even if, it is not by framing an Ordinance, was held to be valid. Based on that finding, the Writ Petition was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved by the said decision of the learned Single Judge, this Writ Appeal is filed. 2. The appellant raised the very same contention relying on Section 99(2), which was rejected by the learned Single Judge, before us also. He also submitted that the prescription of qualifications contained in Ext.P6 is at variance with the prescription of qualification for the said post made by the University Grants Commission (for short 'UGC') in Annexure-I. 3. Section 99(2) of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act, 1985, reads as follows: “Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) all Statutes and Ordinances made under the Kerala University Act, 1974 (17 of 1974) and in force on the date of the commencement of this Act shall, in so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions W.A.No.1234/2009 3 of this Act continue to be in force in respect of the areas referred to in sub-section (1) until they are replaced by the Statutes and Ordinances to be made under this Act.” 4. The Statutes, Ordinances etc. in force in the area of operation of the Mahatma Gandhi University, but transferred from the area of the Kerala University and which are framed by the Kerala University will continue to operate until the Mahatma Gandhi University frames its own Statutes, Ordinances etc. As per the Ordinance, relevant in this case, framed by the Kerala University, there is no post of Assistant Director in the department of Adult Continuing and Extension Education in the Kerala University. Therefore, Section 99(2) have no application to the facts of the case. So, we notice that the learned Single Judge has rejected this contention validly and we find no reason to interfere with it. The appellant has raised a new ground in this appeal, which he has failed to raise in the writ petition, that there is conflict between the prescription made by the UGC under Annexure-I and the prescription made by the Mahatma Gandhi University in Ext.P6. We notice that there is not much difference between the qualifications prescribed by the Mahatma Gandhi W.A.No.1234/2009 4 University for the said post and the qualifications contained in Annexures-I and III produced along with this Writ Appeal. The said annexures contain prescriptions of qualification made by the UGC for the said post. Even assuming, there is some difference in the qualification, the same will not make Ext.P6 null and void. Such variation, if found to be substantial, will enable the UGC to take appropriate action against Mahatma Gandhi University. We are not inclined to accept the contention of the appellant that Ext.P6 is at variance with Annexures-I and III and even assuming it is at variance, the same will not make Ext.P6 a nullity. In the result, the Writ Appeal fails and it is dismissed. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) ps