IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 17TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 26TH KARTHIKA 1930 WA.No. 2204 of 2008() ----------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DTD. 4/09/2008 IN WP(C) NO.33462/2007 APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENTS: 4 & 5: ----------------------------------------------------------- 1. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, ATHIRAMPUZHA P.O., KOTTAYAM. 2. SYNDICATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON AFFILIATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, PROF.K.MATHEW, DEPARTMENT OF PHYSICS, MAR BASELIOUS COLLEGE, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI. T.A. SHAJI, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 & 6: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. DR.USHAMANI.M., D/O.LATE R.N.PANICKER, AGED 37 YEARS, LECTURER IN CHEMISTRY, ST.TERESA'S COLLEGE, COCHIN - 35, RESIDING AT 'KANMANI', BHARATH MATHA COLLEGE P.O., THRIKKAKARA. 2. DR.ANU GOPINATH, D/O.SRI.K.P.GOPINATH, AGED 31 YEARS, LECTURER IN CHEMISTRY, ST.TERESA'S COLLEGE, COCHIN-35, RESIDING AT 'OCEANUS', MANGATTU ROAD, MAMANGALAM P.O. 3. SHILPA JOSE, D/O.SRI. JOSE THOMAS, AGED 29 YEARS, LECTURER IN HOME SCIENCE, ST.TERESA'S COLLEGE, COCHIN-35, RESIDING AT NO.5, SBI OFFICERS COLONY, CHAKKUNGAL ROAD, PALARIVATTOM KOCHI-25. Kss ..2/- ...2..... W.A.NO.2204/2008 4. DHANYA.N., D/O.SRI.K.NARAYANAN, AGED 30 YEARS, LECTURER IN HOME SCIENCE, ST.TERESA'S COLLEGE, COCHIN-35, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT ST.TERESA'S COLLEGE HOSTEL, ERNAKULAM, (PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT 'SREE NIVAS', CHIRAKKUTTI P.O., ANCHAMPEEDIKA, KANNUR - 670 331). 5. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION (D) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. DIRECTORATE OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 7. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE, EDUCATION, ERNAKULAM. 8. MANAGER, CONGREGATION OF CARMALITE SISTERS OF ST.TERESA'S ERNAKULAM, ST.TERESA'S COLLEGE, COCHIN-11. ADV. SRI. O.V.RADHAKRISHNAN (Sr.) FOR R1 TO R4 SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BENNY GERVACIS FOR R5 TO R7 ADV. SRI. BABY ISSAC ILLICKAL FOR R8 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/11/2008 ALONG WITH W.A.NO.2219 OF 2008 AND W.A.NO.2220 OF 2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss J.B. Koshy & Thomas P.Joseph, JJ. -------------------------------------- W.A. Nos.2204, 2219 & 2220 of 2008 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of November, 2008 Judgment Koshy,J. Some of the teachers as well as the management approached this court as the appointment of the teachers were not approved from the date of their appointments and salary was not paid. On the basis of the contentions, files were called for and it was found that they were appointed in the sanctioned posts against existing vacancies. It was also found that those teachers were academically fully qualified. These are all private aided colleges and appointments are to be made by the college management on the recommendation of a selection committee constituted as per Rules. Contention of the university was that manager did not consider all the applications while selecting the teachers. In paragraph 20 of the judgment, the learned single Judge considered the matter as follows: "20. When the available vacancies are few, and the number of applicants is large, it is always open to the management to restrict the zone of consideration, subject to any minimum W.A. Nos. 2204, 2219 & 2220/2008 2 prescribed in the rules. If there is no such prescription, management need only ensure the availability of reasonable number of candidates as against the number of vacancies that are to be filled up following a reasonable criteria. This right of the management, to shortlist the candidates cannot be doubted, so long as the criteria adopted is fair and reasonable in the light of the judgments in Union of India and another v. T. Sundararaman and others ((1997) 4 SCC 664), Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Navnit Kumar Potdar and another ((1994) 6 SCC 293) and Jayakumar v. High Court of Kerala (2001 (2) KLT 924). Therefore, I cannot accept the plea of the University that the Management was incompetent to short list candidates. The further question is whether there was sufficient number of short listed candidates for selection. University has not raised such an argument and therefore it is not necessary for me to consider that issue." The selection committee was constituted correctly and the contention that at least three persons should have been called for each post was also considered in paragraph 23 of the judgment as follows: "23. A reading of Statute 3 (1) shows that in order to ensure that appointment of teachers by direct recruitment are on the basis of merit, such appointments shall be made from a panel of three names for every vacancy recommended by a selection committee constituted in the manner provided therein. However, statute 3 (3) provides that notwithstanding statute 3 (1) in the case of an educational agency which has entered into direct payment agreement, W.A. Nos. 2204, 2219 & 2220/2008 3 appointment of teachers shall be made from a list of persons prepared by a selection committee constituted in the manner provided therein. Constitution of the Selection Committee in so far as per Statutes 3 (1) and 3 (3) are also different. University has no case that the college has not entered into direct payment agreement. If that be so, what is relevant is statute 3 (3) and unlike statute 3 (1), statute 3 (3) does not prescribe the requirement of a panel of three names, but only provides that appointment of teachers shall be made only from a list of persons prepared by a selection committee. Therefore, as far as the college is concerned, it is governed by statute 3 (3) and there is no requirement of a panel of three names for every vacancy. I do not find any substance in the plea of the University that statute 3 (3) of Chapter 45B is subject to statute 3 (1), since such an interpretation is against the plain terms of the statute itself. Hence, the 2nd reason assigned in Ext.P16 is also unacceptable." These two objections were raised by the University and they were found unsustainable by the Court. Individual cases were considered by the learned Judge in detail and allowed the writ petitions and directed the respondents in the writ petition to disburse their pay and allowances with full service benefits from the date of their due appointment. Since teachers were selected by a duly appointed selection committee as per the Rules and they were fully qualified and appointments were made to the sanctioned vacancies, we fully W.A. Nos. 2204, 2219 & 2220/2008 4 agree with the views of the learned single Judge and since we fully agree with the views, we are not reiterating the views. All the appeals are dismissed. J.B.Koshy Judge Thomas P. Joseph Judge vaa W.A. Nos. 2204, 2219 & 2220/2008 5 J.B. KOSHY AND THOMAS P.JOSEPH,JJ. ------------------------------------- W.A.Nos.2204, 2219 & 2220/2008 ------------------------------------- Judgment Date:17th November,2008