C.R. Dhanya, Lecturer, Department vs University of Kerala and Others

T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.—The Petitioner, a Lecturer in the Department of Bio-Chemistry in the college managed by the second Respondent, has approached this Court by challenging Ext. P4 order whereby the University rejected the proposal for approval of her appointment in the said post.

The Petitioner was subsequently granted approval as per Ext. P6 order in the light of the interim order passed by this Court dated 30/03/2010.

It is a case where the University wanted the Management to produce the relinquishment letter from the fifth Respondent and another candidate included in the ranked list. A reading of Ext. P4 order shows that rank No. II secured 67.4 marks and the Petitioner who was rank No. III secured 64.3 marks. Therefore, the University was of the view that the Petitioner was appointed after passing over the fifth Respondent.

In spite of receipt of notice from this Court, the fifth Respondent has not appeared and has not opposed the prayer in the writ petition. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the fifth Respondent is working as Reader and Head of the Department in an Arts and Science College at Coimbatore and she is not interested in the job.

The Management has filed a counter affidavit. It is pointed out that from the open merit Smt. Anila L. was appointed by order dated 08/12/2005 and she joined duty as Lecturer in the Department of Bio-Chemistry in N.S.S College, Nilamel. The fifth Respondent did not come to the office of the second Respondent to receive the order of appointment. The Petitioner has secured 64.3 marks and one Smt. Sandhya C., who is rank No. 2 in the community quota, has secured 63.9 marks. Hence, the Petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in the Department of Bio-Chemistry in the N.S.S College, Pandalam as per Ext. P2 order dated 14/12/2005. It is pointed out that rank No. 1 from community quota did not join duty, the said vacancy earmarked for community quota shall be treated as lapsed in the light of the facts stated in the counter affidavit.

Already, the University has provisionally approved the appointment of the Petitioner subject to final disposal of the writ petition.

Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner who has submitted that Ext. P4 order happened to be issued since the University wanted to ascertain the claim of the fifth Respondent. By efflux of time and because of the fact that the fifth Respondent has not responded to the appointment made by the Management and as she has not filed any counter affidavit in the writ petition in spite of being arrayed as Respondent No. 5, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner prayed that the University may be directed to approve the appointment of the Petitioner on a regular basis.

The circumstances already referred to justifies the appointment and the approval. In that view of the matter, since the Petitioner has already been appointed provisionally and is receiving salary, there will be a direction to the University to grant approval on a regular basis which will be done within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. In the light of the above, Ext. P4 is set aside. The writ petition is allowed as above. No costs.