IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 7TH DECEMBER 2010 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 35193 of 2010(Y) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- 1. MANAGER, ST. STEPEHN'S COLLEGE, UZHAVOOR-686 634. 2. FRANCIS CYRIAC E, PRINCIPAL, ST. STEPHEN'S COLLEGE, UZHAVOOR-686 634. BY ADVS. SRI.BABY ISSAC ILLICKAL, SRI.ISAAC KURUVILLA ILLIKAL. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, KOTTAYAM - 86 2. VICE CHANCELLOR, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, KOTTAYAM - 86. 3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, ERNAKULAM - 23. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI. T.A. SHAJI, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. NISHA BOSE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C).No.35193 OF 2010 ------------------------------ Dated this the 7th day of December, 2010 JUDGMENT The first petitioner is the Manager of St.Stephen's College, Uzhavoor. It is stated that the College was established in 1964 by the Archeparchy of Kottayam, and it belongs to Knanaya Catholic Christian community. According to the petitioners, the college is a minority educational institution affiliated to Mahatma Gandhi University. The petitioners relied on Ext.P1 certificate dated 20.8.2009 issued by the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions recognizing St.Stephen's College, Uzhavoor as a minority educational institution. 2. The first petitioner appointed the second petitioner as Principal of the College with effect from 1.5.2010 consequent on the inter management transfer of the Principal with effect from W.P.(C).No.35193 OF 2010 2 31.3.2010. It is stated that the second petitioner was appointed after evaluating the merit and suitability to the post of Principal. According to the petitioners, the College being a minority educational Institution, it is not necessary to follow seniority for the purpose of appointment of the Principal, if the person to be appointed belongs to minority community. The second petitioner being a member of the minority community and he being otherwise qualified and suitable to be appointed as the Principal, Section 59(3) of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act prescribing for seniority cum fitness for appointment to the post of Principal does not apply in the case of the first petitioner's educational institution, submits the counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners also relied on Secretary, Malankara Syrian Catholic College v. T.Jose and Others [(2007)1 SCC 386] and Manager, Malankara Syrian Catholic Colleges Association and Others v. Kerala University, W.P.(C).No.35193 OF 2010 3 Thiruvananthapuram and Others [2009(4) KHC 241]. 3. The proposal for approval of appointment of the second petitioner was forwarded to the Mahatma Gandhi University. The University passed Ext.P5 order dated 30.9.2010, which reads as follows: “The Manager, St.Stephen's College, Uzhavoor vide letter referred to (1) above had requested to approve the appointment of Dr.Francis Cyriac E as Principal of the college with effect from 1.5.2010 F.N. The Syndicate, at its meeting held on 9.9.2010 vide reference (2) above has resolved to reject the above proposal as the appointment is against the statutes of the University.” 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that no reasons are stated and communicated to the petitioners for rejecting the proposal for approval of appointment of the second petitioner. The only reason stated for rejecting the proposal is that the appointment is against the statutes of the University. The learned counsel for W.P.(C).No.35193 OF 2010 4 the petitioners submitted that probably the only relevant provision would be Section 59(3) of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act, which provides for seniority cum fitness in the matter of appointment of the Principal. The counsel submits that since first petitioner's institution is a minority institution and it is certified to be a minority institution by the Commission, there was no justification for rejecting the proposal for approval of the appointment of the second petitioner for that reason. It is submitted that in view of the minority status of the Institution, the University was not justified in rejecting the proposal on the ground of violation of Section 59 (3) of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act, even assuming that was the ground on which the proposal was rejected. The counsel submitted that Ext.P5 is liable to be quashed as no reasons are stated in the order. The counsel relies on Maya Devi (Dead) Through Lrs. v. Raj Kumari Batra (Dead) Through W.P.(C).No.35193 OF 2010 5 Lrs. and others[(2010)9 SCC 486] and Secretary and Curator, Victoria Memorial Hall v. Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity and others [(2010)3 SCC 732] in support of this contention. 5. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the University submitted that the University is entitled to consider the question whether the institution is a minority institution. It is also in the realm of the University to consider whether the provisions of Section 59(3) of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act have been complied with in the matter of appointment of the second petitioner. 6. Ext.P5 order does not contain any reason for the conclusion. The order is cryptic and non speaking. On that short ground, I am inclined to quash Ext.P5 and to direct the University to consider the matter afresh. For the aforesaid reasons, Ext.P5 order is quashed. The University W.P.(C).No.35193 OF 2010 6 shall consider the matter afresh and shall pass a speaking order. The University shall pass orders as expeditiously as possible, and at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. 7. It is submitted that from the date of appointment, the second petitioner was approved by the University as the drawing and disbursing officer. The University shall pass appropriate orders approving second petitioner as the drawing and disbursing officer till a final decision is taken on the question of approval of appointment of the second petitioner as Principal. The Writ Petition is allowed as above. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE. cms