IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 19TH JULY 2011 / 28TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 4635 of 2011(D) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- DR.P.NANDAKUMAR, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, ANIMAL BREADING AND GENETICS COLLEGE OF VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCE, MANNUTHY, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAVINDRAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SMT.APARNA RAJAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY REP. BY REGISTRAR, KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY POST VELLAYANIKKARA THRISSUR. 680 656. 2. THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY POST VELLAYANIKKARA THRISSUR. 680 656. *ADDL. R3 IMPLEADED. 3. THE REGISTRAR, KERALA VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCE UNIVERSITY, POOKOD, WAYANAD CAMP OFFICE AT COLLEGE OF VETERINARY ANIMAL SCIENCE, MANNUTHY 680 651. ADDL. R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD. 1.3.2011 IN IA. 3456/2011. *ADDL. R4 IMPLEADED 4. VICE CHANCELLOR,KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, POST VELLAYANIKKARA. *ADDL. R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD. 15.6.2011 IN IA. NO.9238/2011. ADDL. R3 BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI SRI.K.P.MUJEEB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/07/2011, THE COURT ON 19/07/2011 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss W.P.(C) NO.4635/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC. 26357/07 DTD. 24.9.2010. P2:- COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE REDRESSAL COMMITTEE HELD ON 19.11.2010. P3:- COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DTD. 6.1.2011. P4:- COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DTD. 12.1.2011 ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR, KERALA VETERINARY & ANIMAL SCIENCE UNIVERSITY, POOKOD, WAYANAD. P5:- COPY OF THE ACTION TAKEN REPORT DTD. 29.11.2010. P6:- COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 15.3.2011. P7:- COPY OF THE MINUTES CARRYING THE DECISION DTD. 30.4.2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL:- TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE tss T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.4635 of 2011-D - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 19th day of July, 2011. JUDGMENT The petitioner who is working as Associate Professor (Animal Breeding & Genetics) under the first respondent University, has filed this writ petition mainly to quash Ext.P2 decision and for a further direction to promote him to the post of Professor in the said faculty. 2. Along with I.A. No.9238/2011 the petitioner has produced Exts.P6 and P7 minutes of the meeting of the Executive Committee of the University, whereby a decision has been taken to grant promotion to the petitioner as Professor. Therefore, presently the only relief sought for by the petitioner is to direct the respondents to implement the same. 3. Heard Shri P. Ravindran, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the University. 4. The Vice Chancellor of the University, who was impleaded as additional respondent No.3, has filed a counter affidavit. The stand taken by the Vice Chancellor is that the decision of the Executive Committee is one taken with the dissent of the Vice Chancellor and certain objections have also been taken in the affidavit about the validity of the decision of the wpc 4635/2011 2 Executive Committee. 5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Vice Chancellor cannot refuse to implement the decision of the Executive Committee, being the highest decision making body under the Agricultural University Act. It is in that context the matter was heard in detail. 6. The claim of the petitioner is for promotion to the post of Professor under the Career Advancement Promotion Scheme. He had participated in the selection and screening proceedings conducted by the Selection/Screening Committee from 12.7.2007 to 20.7.2007. He was denied promotion by the Screening Committee on the reasoning that his contributions are not up to the desired standards. This led to the filing of W.P.(C) No.26357/2007 challenging the selection process itself and by alleging that the same was done in violation of the regulations and guidelines issued by the University Grants Commission and for a consequential direction to promote the petitioner in the post of Professor in Veterinary and Animal Sciences. The University informed this Court by filing a statement that a Redressal Committee has been constituted as per the decision of the Executive Committee for examining the anomalies and grievances raised by Teachers/Scientists with regard to the Career Advancement Promotions effected pursuant to the screening done by the wpc 4635/2011 3 Screening/Selection Committee during July, 2007. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a representation produced as Ext.P16 therein, before the Vice Chancellor and by Ext.P1 judgment, this Court directed the Vice Chancellor to place Ext.P16 before the Redressal Committee. There was a further direction to the said Committee to consider his claim as well as to personally hear him before taking the decision. 7. Ext.P2 is the copy of the minutes of the deliberations of the Redressal Committee whereby it was resolved to place the matter before the Executive Committee for taking a decision regarding re-screening. The contention raised in this writ petition is that no re-screening is required in the light of the findings contained in Ext.P2 itself. According to the petitioner, the Committee found that he was denied promotion, though he had three publications in international journals and other requirements. There was one more development, in that, the new University, viz. Kerala Veterinary and Animal Sciences University was formed and after the same, options were being invited from faculty members of the Kerala Agricultural University, as per Ext.P4 circular. Apprehending further delay in the matter, this writ petition was filed by the petitioner. 8. After hearing parties, this Court passed an interim order dated 7.3.2011. In the light of the fact that the matter was placed before the wpc 4635/2011 4 Executive Committee, this Court directed that appropriate decision will be taken with regard to the claims of the petitioner, within a period of three weeks from the date of the interim order, viz. 7.3.2011. 9. Along with I.A. No.9238/2011 the petitioner has produced the decisions taken by the Executive Committee on 15.3.2011 and 30.4.2011, as Exts.P6 and P7. The decision contained in Ext.P7 shows that the Executive Committee decided to grant promotion to the petitioner in the light of the decision of the Redressal Committee with the dissent of the Vice Chancellor. The stand taken by the Vice Chancellor as evident from a reading of the decision therein is that he will have to appear for the next C.A.P. In the light of the above decision of the Executive Committee, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Vice Chancellor is bound to implement the same by granting promotion to the petitioner. 10. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submitted the following: The Vice Chancellor was the Chairman of the Selection Committee for Career Advancement Promotion to the cadre of Professor, held in July, 2007. He is not a member of the Redressal Committee. The selection for Career Advancement Promotion has to be done by the Selection Committee and not any other authority. The decision of the Redressal Committee is to place the matter before the Executive Committee wpc 4635/2011 5 for a decision on re-screening. This aspect was pointed out by the Vice Chancellor before the Executive Committee held on 15.3.2011 and the Vice Chancellor had expressed the view that the petitioner can be given eligible benefits if he appears in the next C.A.P. It is averred in para 10 of the affidavit that the decision of the Executive Committee overlooking the decision of the Selection Committee disqualifying the petitioner is not proper and having no legal backing and the Vice Chancellor who is the Chairman of the Selection Committee, cannot be part of nullifying the decision of the Selection Committee chaired by him. It is also stated that the petitioner did not avail subsequent chances to apply for CAP conducted during different occasions. Accordingly, the stand taken by the Vice Chancellor is that the petitioner will have to appear before the next CAP to get assessed for promotion to the cadre of CAP as per the rules in vogue. It is hence prayed that the writ petition may be dismissed. 11. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner relied upon various provisions of the University Act to show that the highest decision making body of the University is the Executive Committee and even though the Vice Chancellor has expressed his dissent, he is bound by the majority decision of the Executive Committee which will prevail. It is therefore submitted that as there is a decision by the Executive Committee to promote wpc 4635/2011 6 the petitioner, the petitioner need not undergo any fresh selection process. It is further pointed out that the Redressal Committee itself had found in favour of the petitioner and the matter was decided to be placed before the Executive Committee by the Redressal Committee itself and the Executive Committee is competent to take any decision. Reference was made to Section 16 of the Act conferring powers on the Executive Committee and certain other relevant provisions. 12. Learned Standing Counsel for the University relied upon Section 28(4) of the Act to contend that the Vice Chancellor is bound to enforce the provisions of the Act, Statutes, Rules, Ordinances and Regulations strictly. 13. The relevant provisions of the Act are therefore to be considered. Chapter III is under the head “Authorities of the University” and Executive Committee is one of the authorities specified therein. Section 14 concerns with the constitution of the Executive Committee and it is specified therein that “the Executive Committee shall be the chief executive body of the University.” Section 16 confers various powers on the Executive Committee and clause (g) is important herein. The relevant portion of the Section is extracted below: “16. Powers of Executive Committee:- Subject to this Act and the Statutes, the Executive powers of the University including the wpc 4635/2011 7 general superintendence and control over the institutions of the University shall be vested in the Executive Committee and subject likewise the Committee shall have the following powers namely:- (a) to (f) xxxxxxxxxx (g) to appoint teachers and other employees of the University and prescribe their duties. (h) to (s) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx” Chapter IV prescribes the “Officers of the University” which includes the Vice Chancellor. Section 28 confers powers and duties of the Vice Chancellor. Sub-sections (4) and (8) of Section 28 provide as follows: “(4) The Vice-Chancellor shall ensure the faithful observance of the provisions of this Act, the Statutes, the Ordinances and the Regulations and may exercise such powers as may be necessary for this purpose. (8) The Vice Chancellor shall give effect to the orders of the General Council and the Executive Committee regarding the appointment, suspension and dismissal of officers, teachers and other employees of the University.” The constitution of committees is governed by Section 21 of the Act which is also extracted below: “Constitution of committees:- Every authority shall have the power to appoint committees which may, unless otherwise provided in this Act or the Statutes, consist of the members of the Authority, and such other persons as it may think fit.” wpc 4635/2011 8 14. First I will examine whether the objection taken by the Vice Chancellor that he was not a member of the Redressal Committee, is relevant or not. Going by Section 21 of the Act, it is clear that every authority of the University will have power to appoint committees which may include members of the “Authority” and such other persons as it may think fit. Evidently, one of the authorities of the University is the Executive Committee. It is clear from Ext.P1 judgment that the Executive Committee of the University had constituted the Redressal Committee as per its decision of the 443rd meeting held on 23.8.2007 vide Order No.GA/C2/27433/2007 dated 6.9.2007. This was for examining the anomalies and grievances raised by the Teachers/Scientists with regard to the Career Advancement Promotion Order and the Scientists who have grievances are requested to submit their grievance in writing, before the Committee. Therefore, the Redressal Committee and its constitution was properly made in terms of Section 21 of the Act. It is in that context this Court directed Ext.P16 representation to be placed before the Redressal Committee. Of course, the decision of the Redressal Committee as reflected in Ext.P2 shows that the Redressal Committee examined the papers submitted by him at the time of hearing and those submitted by him at the time of screening and found that he was denied promotion, though he had wpc 4635/2011 9 three papers in international journals and other requirements. They decided to place the matter before the Executive Committee for taking a decision regarding “re-screening”. Learned Standing Counsel for the University laid emphasis on the word “re-screening” to contend that the Executive Committee could have only placed the matter for re-screening before the Selection Committee and could not have taken the decision to promote the petitioner. 15. Herein, one thing to be noticed is that the Redressal Committee also had found that the petitioner was denied promotion, though he had three papers in international journals and other requirements. It is clear from the powers conferred on the Executive Committee under Section 16 (g) that they have power to appoint teachers and other employees of the University and prescribe their duties. Going by Section 14, the Executive Committee is the chief executive body of the University. Therefore, it cannot be said that they could not have taken any independent decision in the matter and was bound by the suggestion of the Redressal Committee for a re-screening. It was open for the Executive Committee to take any decision. Therefore, the decision of the Executive Committee as reflected in Exts.P6 and P7 will have to be understood in that manner. Evidently, the word “appoint” includes appointment by promotion also. Therefore, even if wpc 4635/2011 10 it was the promotion of the petitioner under the Career Advancement Programme, power is there for the Executive Committee to take a decision with regard to the promotion to the post of Professor, as sought for by the petitioner, in the light of Section 16(8) of the Act. 16. Hence, the stand of the Vice Chancellor and the argument of the learned Standing Counsel for the University that the petitioner has to attend the CAP afresh, cannot be justified. 17. Even though heavy reliance was placed by the learned Standing Counsel for the University on sub-section (4) of Section 28 of the Act, I do not find anything therein which militates against the power of the Executive Committee which is the highest executive body of the University. Apart from that, going by sub-section (8) of Section 28 of the Act, the Vice Chancellor shall give effect to the orders of the General Council and the Executive Committee regarding the “appointment”, suspension and dismissal of officers, teachers and other employees of the University. Therefore, the Vice Chancellor cannot refuse to implement the decision of the Executive Committee at all. Of course, the Vice Chancellor had expressed his dissent in the meeting of the Executive Committee. He was chairing the meeting also. Any decision of the committees of the University in case of dissent of any member/members, will have to go by the majority wpc 4635/2011 11 view. Once the majority decision prevails after recording the dissent, it becomes a decision of the Executive Committee itself. There is no provision under the Act enabling the Vice Chancellor to overrule the decision of the Executive Committee also. In that view of the matter also, the stand taken by the Vice Chancellor that the petitioner will have to again appear before the Screening Committee, in spite of the decision of the Executive Committee, cannot be justified. 18. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed. There will be a direction to the respondents to implement the decision of the Executive Committee reflected in Exts.P6 and P7 and appropriate orders will be passed within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, by granting promotion to the petitioner as Professor under the Career Advancement Promotion Scheme. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/