IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2011 / 12TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 5125 of 2011(M) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- K.A.HASHIM, FORMERLY PRINCIPAL, T.K.M.COLLEGE, KOLLAM. BY ADV. MR. KURIAN GEORGE KANNANTHANAM, SENIOR ADVOCATE MR. TONY GEORGE KANNANTHANAM MR. MATHEW K. SIMON RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. UNIVERSITY OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 034. 2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 034. 3. DR.K.PADMAKUMAR, SR.LECTURER, AQUATIC BIOLOGY & FISHERIES, UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT, KARIAVATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-32. BY MR. M. RAJAGOPLAN NAIR, STANDING COUNSEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P (C) No. 5125 OF 2011 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 3rd day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner has described himself in a 'strange manner' in this writ petition, giving his address as 'Formerly Principal, TKM College, Kollam'. On probing the probable reason, this Court finds that, the petitioner himself happens to be the first respondent i.e. University of Kerala represented by the Registrar, for the fact that the petitioner is admittedly holding the office of the Registrar. In other words, the writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, against himself acting in a different capacity, also including some others as well, in the party array. 2. Coming to the merits of the case, the claim of the petitioner is that, he wants to change his “supervising guide” with regard to the research being pursued under the 3rd respondent. With this intent, request is stated as made before the second respondent, which however has been turned down, by way of Ext. P7 'Note', stating that, the matter will have to be placed for consideration before the Syndicate. The contention of the petitioner is that, by virtue of the powers conferred upon the Vice Chancellor/2nd respondent under Section 10 (13) of the Kerala University Act, the claim of the petitioner is liable to be considered by the Vice W.P. (C) No. 5125 of 2011 2 Chancellor himself, as the Syndicate is not in office and stands to be elected. 3. With regard to the scope of power conferred under Section 10 (13) of the Kerala University Act, the provision says as follows: 10(13) If at any time, except when the Syndicate of the Academic Council is in session, the Vice-Chancellor is satisfied that that an emergency has arisen requiring him to take immediate action involving the exercise of any power vested in the Syndicate or the Academic Council by or under this Act the Vice-Chancellor may take such action as he deems fit, and shall, at the next session of the Syndicate or the Academic Council, as the case may be report the action taken by him to that authority for such action as it may consider necessary. Obviously, the above power to be exercised by the second respondent/ Vice Chancellor, is only in 'emergencies' and not casually or as a matter of course. 4. With regard to the claim of the petitioner as to the necessity to change the 'supervisory guide', this Court finds that such emergency situation is there as contemplated under Section 10 (13) of the Act and that the petitioner has necessarily to wait till the Syndicate is duly constituted. The question of law as to the scope of power under Section 10 (13) of the Act as above has been explained by this Court as per the decision reported in 1997 (1) KLT 281 (Dr. Leekakrishnan Vs. Cochin University). W.P. (C) No. 5125 of 2011 3 In the above circumstances, no interference is called for. The Writ Petition fails and it is dismissed accordingly. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd