IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1931 OP.No. 24633 of 1998(G) ----------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- DR.B.KARUNAKARAN, READER AND HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT OF SANSKRIT, S.N.COLLEGE,KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANKARANKUTTY NAIR SRI.T.V.AJAYAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1.UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, P.O CALICUT UNIVERSITY, KOZHIKODE,REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. 2.CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, KERALA RAJ BHAVAN, GOVERNER'S SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3.VICE-CHANCELLOR, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O.CALICUT UNIVERSITY,KOZHIKODE. 4. SYNDICATE, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, P.O.CALICUT UNIVERSITY, KOZHIKODE, RE[PRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 5.DR.T.K.NARAYANAN, PROFESSOR OF SANSKRIT, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, P.O.CALICUT UNIVERSITY, KOZHIKODE. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. M.R.SABU ADV. SRI.S.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR, SC, CALICUT UTY. FOR R1,3,4 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/11/2009, THE COURT ON 24/11/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN,J. ============= O.P.NO.24633 OF 1998 ================= Dated this the 24th day of November, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner while working as a Reader in Sanskrit in S.N. College, Kollam applied for the post of Professor of Sanskrit in the University of Calicut, pursuant to Ext. P1 notification inviting applications. A Selection Committee was constituted, who found only the petitioner and the 4th respondent eligible to be considered for appointment. Therefore the Selection Committee interviewed the petitioner and the 4th respondent and the petitioner was recommended for appointment by the Selection Committee. The matter was placed before the Syndicate allegedly at the instigation of the 5th respondent who was a member of the syndicte . The Syndicate adopted a resolution not to accept the recommentation of the Selection committee on the ground that the Selection committee was not properly constituted. The Vice Chancellor informed the Syndicate that the Selection Committee was properly constituted and all the members of the Selection Committee had all the qualifications required for being members of the Selection Committee. The matter was taken up to the Chancellor, O.P.NO.24633 OF 1998 2 who after considering the matter under Sub section (3) of section 7 of the Calicut University Act, annulled the decision of the Syndicate and directed the Syndicate to re-consider the matter. The matter again came up before the Syndicate, who instead of taking a decision in the matter decided to forward the individual views of all the members of the Syndicate to the second respondent Chancellor for a decision. The matter is still pending before the Chancellor is the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner. However by way of caution the counsel submitted that he has not contacted the petitioner for sometime and therefore, he cannot definitely say that the Chancellor has not taken a decision in the matter. In the meanwhile, the 5th respondent filed O.P.No.11229/90 challenging the decision of the Chancellor. While that petition was pending, the University invited fresh applications for appointment to the post of Professor in Sanskrit. The petitioner was unaware of the proceedings and he did not participate in the selection process. Ultimately, the 4th respondent was selected and appointed. It is under the above circumstances the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs:- (i). Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the Ext.P9 to the extent Post of Professor of Sanskrit is renotified and Ext.P10 to the extent the 5th respondent is appointed as Professor of Sanskrit in the 1st respondent University; O.P.NO.24633 OF 1998 3 (ii). Issue direction to the 2nd respondent Chancellor to appoint or to issue appropriate direction to appoint, the petitioner as the Professor of Sanskrit in the 1st respondent University with retrospective effect, persuant to Ext.P1; (iii). Issue direction to the 2nd respondent to take a decision in the matter of appointment of Professor of Sanskrit persuant to Ext.P6 communication of the 4th respondent Syndicate immediately, within a time limit to be stipulated by this Hon'ble High Court; and (iv). Grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant. 2. The University has not chosen to file a counter affidavit in this case. Therefore, I must accept that the averments of the petitioner in the writ petition are true and correct. That being so, I also accept the contention of the petitioner that the constitution of the Selection Committee which recommended the petitioner for appointment was valid. In fact, the Chancellor had also come to the same conclusion in Ext.P5 Order. In view of the same, the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs prayed for in the writ petition. But I am confronted with another difficulty in granting the reliefs. Petitioner has long passed the age of superannuation. Therefore, the only question now to be considered is whether the petitioner is entitled to notional benefits of such selection. Therefore I am inclined to direct the 2nd respondent-Chancellor to consider the question as to what reliefs the O.P.NO.24633 OF 1998 4 petitioner is entitled to for illegaly denying him the benefit of selection made by a properly constituted Selection Committee headed by the Vice Chancellor himself and consequqnt notional appointment. Accordingly, I dispose of this original petition with a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the reliefs to be given to the petitioner in the matter on the basis of the selection which I have held as valid and proper. Orders in this regard shall be passed by the 2nd respondent- Chancellor as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. S.SIRI JAGAN,JUDGE. mns