High Court of Kerala
Case Law Search
DR.RAJAN VARGHESE, READER AND HEAD OF v. THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA REPRESENTED - WP(C) No. 18778 of 2007(I)  RD-KL 12820 (12 July 2007)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMWP(C) No. 18778 of 2007(I)
1. DR.RAJAN VARGHESE, READER AND HEAD OF
1. THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA REPRESENTED
2. THE MANAGEMENT OF MALANKARA SYRIAN
3. REV.FR.M.G.MATHEW, THE PRINCIPAL IN
4. THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,
5. THE MAR IVANIOUS COLLEGE,
For Petitioner :SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON
For Respondent :SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
O R D E R
A.K.BASHEER, J.W.P.(C)No.18778 OF 2007
Dated this the 12th day of July, 2007
In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at the Bar, particularly the request made by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner will be satisfied, if a direction is issued to the Vice Chancellor of the first respondent/University to take a decision on Ext.P4 representation, I am satisfied that this writ petition can be disposed of without referring to the rival contentions of the parties in detail.
2. Petitioner who is stated to be working as Reader in the Department of Commerce and Tourism in Mar Ivanios College has impugned Ext.P2 order of appointment of respondent no.3 as Drawing and Disbursing Officer. It is contended by him that so long as the appointment of respondent no.3 as Principal of the College has not been approved by the University, he cannot be allowed to function as Drawing and Disbursing Officer. W.P.(C)No.18778 OF 2007
3. However it is contended on behalf of respondents 2, 3 and 5 that the contentions raised by the petitioner are wholly untenable. It is submitted by the learned counsel that their lordships of the Supreme Court in Secretary, Malankara Syrian Catholic College v. T. Jose (2007 (1) SCC 386) had held that 5th respondent college is a minority institution. The said decision of their lordships was followed by the Tribunal in Ext.R2(3) order passed by the Kerala University Appellate Tribunal. The above appeal was filed by the petitioner. The contention of these respondents is that since the institution has been accorded minority status, it is the right of the management to choose a competent teacher of its choice as the Drawing and Disbursing Officer.
4. Anyhow, I do not deem it necessary to deal with the various contentions raised by the parties, in view of the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner at the Bar. He prays that the Vice Chancellor may be directed to take a decision on Ext.P4. W.P.(C)No.18778 OF 2007
5. The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Vice Chancellor of the Kerala University, who is impleaded as additional respondent no.6, to take a decision on Ext.P4 strictly on its merit and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Needless to mention that respondent no.6 shall ensure that the petitioner and respondents 2, 3 and 5 are afforded sufficient opportunity to be heard before taking a decision in the matter. It will be open to respondents 2, 3 and 5 to draw the attention of the Vice Chancellor to the judgment of the Supreme Court referred to above. Petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition along with a certified copy of the judgment before the respondent no.6 for compliance. Writ petition is disposed of as above.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.