IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN TUESDAY, THE 25TH OCTOBER 2011 / 3RD KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 28308 of 2011(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MANULAL M.P., S/O. PURUSHOTHAMAN M.K., AGED 28 YEARS, MALAYINMEL HOUSE, ANNANAD P.O., CHALAKUDY. BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE MS.ACHU SHUBHA ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, COCHIN UNIVERSITY P.O., KOCHI-682 022, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. 2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, COCHIN UNIVERSITY P.O., KOCHI-682 022. 3. DR.A.RAMACHANDRAN, PROFESSOR, SCHOOL OF INDUSTRIAL FISHERIES, COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, COCHIN UNIVERSITY P.O., KOCHI-682 022. 4. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. BY SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI, ADVOCATE GENERAL ADV. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAI,SC,COCHI U FOR R1&2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO.28308/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 29/04/2008. P2 : COPY OF ORDER NO.Ad.A1/27/2004 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 29/04/2008. P3 : COPY OF ORDER NO.LAI/ENQUIRY (B.TECH ADMISSION) 2007-08 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 26/05/2008. P4 : COPY OF REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 25/02/2011. P5 : COPY OF NOTE TO THE SYNDICATE DATED NIL SUBMITTED BY THE REGISTRAR OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF ITEM NO.575.34 IN THE AGENDA. P6 : COPY OF ORDER NO.20023/B2/11/H.EDN. DATED 20/10/2011 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. P7 : COPY OF REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE COCHIN UNIVERSITY EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION TO THE CHANCELLOR OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 01/10/2011. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. jg C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, Ag.CJ. & P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. .................................................................... WP(C) No.28308 of 2011 .................................................................... Dated this the 25th day of October, 2011. J U D G M E N T Ramachandran Nair, Ag.CJ. This WP(C) filed before the learned Single Judge is referred to this Court to consider this as a Public Interest Litigation. The petitioner, a student of the Cochin University. has challenged appointment of the 3rd respondent as Registrar of the University. The petitioner's case is that while functioning as Registrar provisionally, the 3rd respondent was involved in irregularities in as much as he denied concession and benefits to eligible Scheduled Caste and backward students and at the same time granted benefits to certain ineligible students. Enquiry was admittedly ordered against the 3rd respondent and the same is continuing for the last 3 years. During the enquiry, at the request of the 3rd respondent himself, he was relieved of his duties as Registrar and he was allowed to function as Professor in the parent Department. WP(C) No.28308/2011 2 2. After 3 years of enquiry, when all the witnesses from the University are examined, the Government decided that enquiry should be completed within two months, and in between allowed the 3rd respondent to rejoin as Registrar of the University. Learned Advocate General, who took notice on admission, submitted that it is at the request of the 3rd respondent himself that he was relieved of his duties as Registrar of the University and was allowed to work as the Professor in the Department concerned. Now that enquiry is almost over, the Government allowed the 3rd respondent to rejoin duty as the Registrar. 3. Appellant's grievance is against Ext.P6 wherein it is stated that enquiry should be completed within two months or otherwise it should be terminated as infructuous. We do not think the letter issued by the Government vide Ext.P6 is irrelevant because none should be perpetually dragged in an enquiry in a matter like this. Since enquiry is going on for the last 3 years, there is nothing wrong in the Government putting WP(C) No.28308/2011 3 a cut off date in completing the enqiry. However, all what we need to mention is that 2 months' time need not be treated as an absolutely inflexible time limit and we feel one month's more time can be granted to complete the enquiry. This WP(C) is accordingly disposed of modifying Ext.P6 by extending time from 2 months to 3 months to complete the enquiry, failing which consequences as stated in the Government order will follow. This WP(C) is disposed of as above. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE) (P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE) jg