Dr. Anupriya Samuel vs University Of Kerala

V.G.Arun, J

The aggrieved writ petitioner seeks review of the judgment rejecting her prayer to quash Exhibit P13 communication and for directing respondents 1

and 2 to approve her appointment as |Assistant Professor in the Department of Zoology at the 3rd respondent’s College. By Exhibit P13, the

University had rejected the proposal for approving the petitioner's appointment stating that she did not have the requisite qualification on the date of

submission of application to the notified post of Assistant Professor. The essential facts are as under; The petitioner was ranked No.1 in the list of

candidates for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor notified by the 3rd respondent. Based on petitioner's merit, she was appointed to the post

by Exhibit P3 order dated 22.9.2015. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent submitted proposal seeking approval of the appointment. As Ph.D certificate was

issued after the petitioner had submitted the application seeking appointment, University sought legal opinion regarding the validity of the appointment.

The legal opinion being in favour of the petitioner's appointment, the Standing Committee on Teaching and Non-Teaching Staff of the University,

which is a statutory committee of the Syndicate, recommended approval of the appointment. The Syndicate concurred with the recommendation, but

the Vice-Chancellor disagreed with the Syndicate decision. This had resulted in the issuance of Exhibit P13, finding the selection to be not in

accordance with the UGC Regulations, 2010.

It was contended that the petitioner having submitted her thesis on 19.6.2015, delay on the part of the University in holding the Syndicate meeting

and granting the Ph.D certificate cannot be to the petitioners' detriment and that the extant Rules and Regulations of the Kerala University did not

specify, as to when exactly a candidate could be considered to have acquired the Ph.D degree.

By the judgment sought to be reviewed, the grounds of challenge were repelled holding that, neither acceptance of the thesis nor a pass in the viva

voce would automatically confer Ph.D Degree on a candidate. It was therefore held that Exhibit P13, by which the University refused to approve the

petitioner’s appointment, is legal and valid.

The judgment is sought to be reviewed on the ground that failure to consider Annexures A1 and A2 judgments rendered under similar

circumstances, finding the Syndicate to be the authority conferred with the power to approve appointments and the binding effect of the Syndicate's

recommendation, has rendered the judgment unsustainable.

The facts discussed in Annexure A1 judgment shows that after approval of appointment of the petitioner therein, the Deputy Director of Collegiate

Education had objected to the payment of salary on the premise that as on the date on which the vacancy was notified, the petitioner did not possess

Ph.D Degree. Therein also, the contention urged was that the petitioner had submitted Ph.D thesis prior to submission of the application and the

University had delayed the holding of open defence and awarding Ph.D Degree. The learned single Judge held that the duty cast upon the Director of

Collegiate Education is to verify whether the appointment is in order and not to sit upon the decision of the Selection Committee, to find out as to

whether the appointee had the requisite qualification as on the date of notification.

In Annexure A2 judgment, the authority of the Vice Chancellor to approve the appointment of Lecturers in Colleges affiliated to the University of

Kerala was one of the issues considered. After referring to the relevant statutory provisions, the Division Bench held as under;

 “13. From a reading of the relevant provisions in the Kerala University Act and, the Statutes and the Regulations framed thereunder, it is abundantly clear

that the authority vested with the power to take a decision in the matter of grant or rejection of approval of appointment in a affiliated college is with the

Syndicate. In the instant case, it can be seen from a mere reading of the impugned Ext.P-10 proceedings dated 29.9.2011 that the said decision therein to reject

the proposal for approval of the impugned appointment of the petitioner as a Lecturer in Bio Chemistry in S.N. College, Kollam has been rendered by the Vice

Chancellor.....................

It is crystal clear from the materials on record that, till date the competent authority of the University vested with the power to take a decision in the matter of

grant or rejection of approval of an appointment has never taken any decision on the issue as to whether approval of the appointment of the petitioner herein has

to be granted or declined. The authority, which is vested with the power to grant approval of an appointment is also the authority, which is vested with the power

to decline or reject approval thereto. Therefore, for effective compliance of the directions issued in Ext.P-7 judgment, the matter relating to the proposal submitted

by the college for approval of the impugned appointment as well as the objections thereto submitted by the contesting respondent herein should have been placed

before the competent authority, viz., Syndicate, to decide, whether the approval of the impugned appointment is to be granted or declined. This has not been done

in the instant case and on the other hand, the Vice Chancellor has proceeded to decide the matter himself and has taken a decision to reject the proposal for

approval of the appointment submitted by the college management. This evidently is wrong and the matter should have been placed for consideration before the

Syndicate to enable it to render a decision on the merits of the matter and in accordance with law.â€​

Having carefully gone through the aforementioned decisions, I am convinced that my judgment require reconsideration. In the result, the Review

Petition is allowed and the judgment dated 25.2.2019 in W.P(C).No.27813 of 2017 is recalled.