IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 26TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 4TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 15850 of 2010(E) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ DR.Y. SHIBU VARDHANAN, READER, DEPARTMENT OF ZOOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, THENHIPALAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY SRI.KRB.KAIMAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADV. SRI.ANIL K.NAIR, SRI.B.UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT (HIS EXCELLENCY THE GOVERNOR OF KERALA), RAJ BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O., THENHIPALAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.RANI DIOTHIMA. R2 BY ADV. SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW, SC, CALICUT UTY. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/09/2011, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 15920 OF 2010 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs WP(C).No. 15850 of 2010(E) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.GAII/F1/1035/06/DATED 04/04/2006 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.GA.II/C1/2149/04 DATED 18/04/2005 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE REPORT (CONCERNING SELECTION AND APPOINTMENT OF READERS AND LECTURERS) DATED 19/07/2007 OF THE SUB COMMITTEE TO THE SYNDICATE. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE SYNDICATE ISSUED IN NOTIFICATION NO.P.1DA1/3335/2007 DATED 24/07/2007. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 07/09/2007 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 07/09/2007 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 04/12/2008 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WP(C) NO. 26273/2006 AND CONNECTED WRIT PETITIONS. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.GAII/F1/1035/06(2) DATED 10/02/2009 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 18/02/2009 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. GAII/F1/1035/06(5) DATED 10/09/2009 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P11: COPY OF THE LETTER NO.GS.3-2670/08 DATED 14/09/2009 OF THE SECRETARY TO HIS EXCELLENCY THE GOVERNOR OF KERALA TO THE VICE CHANCELLOR OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P12: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.GAII/F-1/1035/2006 DATED 17/09/2009 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P13: COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 07/11/2009 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P14: COPY OF THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P15: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21/04/2010 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- EXT.R2(a): COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) Nos.15850, 15920, 16645, 16646, 30485, 30605, 30623, 30624 & 30628 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 26th day of September, 2011. J U D G M E N T All these writ petitions concern a common challenge i.e. regarding the validity of the order passed by the Chancellor of the University. All the petitioners have been appointed in various posts in the different departments of the University. The order passed by the Chancellor has been produced as Ext.P15 in W.P.(C) No.15850/2010 and in other writ petitions. 2. It is a case where the Syndicate of the University after making the appointments, based on the report of the Sub Committee sought to review the decision approving the selection and appointment which was challenged before the Chancellor. Learned Standing Counsel for the University submitted that the direction by the Chancellor in the impugned orders is to the Syndicate itself to take a fresh decision. W.P.(C) No.15850/2010 & conn.cases 2 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the Syndicate has no power to review the decision taken regarding the appointments under any of the provisions of the Statute. Therefore, the question whether the Syndicate has got the power to review the decision has to be decided at the first instance as a preliminary one which will have a bearing on the whole matter. 4. Learned Standing Counsel for the University submitted that the Syndicate will take a decision in the matter especially with regard to the question of jurisdiction also. In that view of the matter, these writ petitions are disposed of directing the Syndicate of the University to take a decision in the matter including the question whether the Syndicate has got the power to review its own decision approving the selection and appointment especially in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in Kalabharati Advertising vs. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania (2010 (3) KLT 986(SC)). Such a decision will be W.P.(C) No.15850/2010 & conn.cases 3 taken after hearing all the parties including the additional respondent in W.P.(C) No.16646/2010, within a period of three months. The payment of salary and other benefits and the question of declaring the probation of the parties concerned will depend upon the decision to be taken by the Syndicate. No costs. T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE smp