IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 16TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 25TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 1204 of 2004(R) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ THOMAS P.GEORGE, LIBRARIAN GRADE II, ST.CYRIL'S COLLEGE, ADOOR. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW SKARIA SRI.JOSE THOMAS (PEEDIKAYIL) RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT., HIGHER EDUCATION (D) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION DEPT. OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, KOLLAM. 4. THE PRINCIPAL, ST. CYRIL'S COLLEGE, ADOOR. 5. THE MANAGER, ST.CYRIL'S COLLEGE, ADOOR. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE J.MATHAIKAL FOR R4,R5 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.T.B.RAMANI FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/09/2008, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 4135 OF 2004 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.1204/2004 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS EXT.P1:- COPY OF THE GO(MS) NO.39/71/EDN. DT. 31.3.1971. EXT.P2:- COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.ESTT.E3/47998/82 DT. 18.1.83. EXT.P3:- COPY OF THE DEGREE CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4:- COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) NO.21/98/H.EDN. DT. 17.2.98. EXT.P5:- COPY OF THE LETTER NO.ESTT. D4/61091/98 DT. 12.2.99. EXT.P6:- COPY OF THE LETTER NO.ESTT. F3/4122/2000/COLL. EDN. DT. 5.10.2000. EXT.P7:- COPY OF THE LETTER NO.ESTT. F3/4122/2000 DT. 30.12.2000. EXT.P8:- COPY OF THE LETTER NO.ESTT.F3/4122/2000 DT. 16.1.2000. EXT.P9:- COPY OF THE LETER NO.8854/D3/2000/H.EDN. DT. 21.7.2001. EXT.P10:- COPY OF THE LETTER NO.29129/D3/2001/H.EDN. DT. 7.12.2001. EXT.P11:- COPY OF THE LETTER NO.F3/4122/2000/COLL. EDN. DT. 30.1.2003. EXT.P12:- COPY OF THE LETTER NO.29129/D3/01/H.EDN. DT. 12.5.2003. EXT.P13:- COPY OF THE LETTER NO.F3/4122/00/H.EDN. DT. 11.6.03. EXT.P14:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT. 8.7.03 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT. EXT.P15:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 11.7.03 IN WPC. NO.22198/03. EXT.P16:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT. 14.7.03 SUBMITTED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT. EXT.P17:- COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE IST RESPONDENT G.O.(RT) NO.1533/2003/H.EDN. DT. 3.11.2003. EXT.P18:- COPY OF THE ENDORSEMENT STOCK REGISTER DT. 26.5.2000 OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P19:- COPY OF THE ENDORSEMENT STOCK REGISTER DT. 5.2.2003 OF THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF THE OFFICE OF the 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P20:- COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DT. 15.12.03. EXT.P21:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.ESTT. F3-50598/01 DT. 1.11.02 OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE tss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) Nos. 1204 & 4135 OF 2004 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 16th day of September 2008 J U D G M E N T Ext. P17 order passed by the 1st respondent is under challenge in WP(C) No.1204/04. This order is Ext. P13 in W.P.(C) No. 4135/04. W.P.(C) No. 1204/04 is filed by the Librarian in the college of which the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 4135/04 is the Manager. For the sake of convenience I shall be referring to the documents as they are marked in W.P.(C) No. 1204/04. 2. The petitioner was a Grade IV Librarian and the post was upgraded to Grade II, by Ext. P5. It was while so that a proposal for upgradation of the library to Grade I was made. That led to Ext. P6, whereby the 2nd respondent after verification recommended for the upgradation of the library into Grade I. Irrespective of the merits of the proposal, subsequently by Ext. P9 the 2nd respondent rejected the same, in view of the economy orders. The matter was pursued by the petitioners herein and as a result thereof, Ext. P11 was issued W.P.(C) Nos. 1204 & 4135 OF 2004 -2- by the 2nd respondent informing the Principal of the college, of an inspection of the library records. The petitioners have a case that Ext. P11 notice was received by them only on 6.2.2003 and that without notice to them an inspection was conducted on 5.2.2003. On the strength of the inspection so conducted, by Ext. P12, the 1st respondent informed that the library does not meet the stands of even Grade II and therefore, the request for upgradation of the library to Grade I cannot be considered. 3. Following this, the 2nd respondent issued Ext. P13, directing respondents 3 and 4 to degrade the library in question to Grade IV. Against Ext. P13 the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 1204/04 filed Ext. P14, requesting the 2nd respondent to conduct a further verification. At that stage the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No. 22198/03 before this Court. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext. p15 directing the 1st respondent to consider Ext. P14 with notice to the parties. Accordingly, Ext. p17 was issued rejecting the claim of the petitioners for upgradation of their library to Grade I. In Ext. P17, it has been found by the 1st respondent as follows: “Accordingly, verification of books in the Library was W.P.(C) Nos. 1204 & 4135 OF 2004 -3- conducted by the Office of the Director of Collegiate Education and it is found that even though there are 15927 books as per the stock register, there are only 14696 books in the Library out of which 2704 books are damaged. The issue Register of books is not maintained properly. Several entries in the Register are seen made in the same handwriting. Based on the verification conducted by the Office of the Director of Collegiate Education, the issue of books in between 5000-10000 even though the petitioner and the Principal claims that the issue of books is above 30000. During 2001-02 the total number of students in the College was 363 and the number of working days 121. Even half of the students have not availed the Library facility. Hence the contention of the petitioner and the Principal that above 30000 books have been issued during 2001-02 cannot be accepted. As per the existing norms, the number of books for Grade I Library shall be above 15000 in stock and issue above 30000. The Library of St. Cyril's College, Adoor has not satisfied the above norms. As such the request for upgradation of the library from Grade II to Grade I cannot be granted. Hence the request is rejected.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners in these cases mainly contend that the findings on the basis of which their claim for upgradation of the library has been rejected is totally erroneous. According to them, the number of working days, the number of students, the number of books and the number of books mentioned in the order issued are all erroneous. It is also their case that the finding that the records were manipulated is also incorrect. W.P.(C) Nos. 1204 & 4135 OF 2004 -4- Petitioners contend that had they been given notice to inspection, they could have appraised the correct facts to the officers who inspected the library and therefore submit that this led to the erroneous report and the final order. 5. Though there is nothing to dispute the correctness of the statement made by the petitioners that the inspection on 5.2.2003 was conducted without notice to them, the learned Govt. Pleader attempts to sustain Ext. P17 on the ground that the said order was passed after hearing the petitioners herein. 6. A reading of Ext. P17 shows that the 1st respondent was entirely relying on the report submitted after the inspection on 5.2.2003. As already noticed, this inspection was held without notice to the petitioners herein. It is the specific case of the petitioners that had they been given notice of this inspection they would have been in a position to appraise the inspection team of the correct factual position. 7. Therefore, since the inspection as above has been held without notice and as the inspection report is the only material that is relied on in Ext. P17, I cannot sustain Ext. P17. In my view the W.P.(C) Nos. 1204 & 4135 OF 2004 -5- circumstances of the case require an order directing the 2nd respondent to get a fresh inspection conducted with notice to the petitioners and consider the request of the petitioners for upgradation of the library on that basis. 8. Therefore, Exts. P12, P13 and P17 will stand set aside. The 2nd respondent is directed to issue notice to the petitioners, conduct an inspection with notice to them, and consider the request of the petitioners for upgradation of the library in the light of the inspection report so obtained. Writ petitions are disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-