Muhammed Iqbal vs Kannur University And Ors

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:-

“(i) Call for the records leading to Exhibit P8 and quash the same by the issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writs,

orders or directions.

(ii) Declare that Exhibit P7 circular does not have any application in the matter as the same does not have any retrospective effect and

therefore, will not bind the petitioner herein.â€​

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the University.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had been appointed as Principal in a self financing college under the 1st

respondent University. It is submitted that the appointment of the petitioner had also been approved. The petitioner contends that he had availed leave

from April, 2015 to May, 2020 and sought to rejoin in service on 01.06.2020. However, on the basis of Ext.P7 circular issued on 25.03.2020, Ext.P8

communication was issued on 24.09.2020 to the Educational agencies stating that the petitioner was not qualified and that a new appointment of

qualified Principal should be intimated without delay. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Ext.P7 had only prospective effect and that

his appointment which stood approved could not be cancelled on the basis of the said circular. It is further contended that he had submitted an

application for leave, which was duly approved by the Educational agency and it was on the said basis that he had proceeded on leave.

A statement has been placed on record by the University. It is submitted that the petitioner had not worked as Principal in the college from April,

2015 to May, 2020 and that the college authorities had never intimated to the University that the petitioner had availed leave. It is submitted that

another person had been working as Principal in the college in the absence of the petitioner and that the petitioner can have no claim for

reappointment.

A reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner producing a copy of a leave application dated 01.03.2015 with an endorsement on 04.03.2015 by

the Educational agency.

Having considered the contentions advanced, I find that the only sustainable contention raised by the petitioner with regard to Ext.P8 is that the

petitioner had not been put on notice or heard before the order was passed. This Court would not be justified in considering the disputed factual aspect

of the case. In case the petitioner has any complaint as against Ext.P8, it is for the petitioner to approach the respondents with the same, which will be

considered in accordance with law. In case the petitioner submits a representation before the 2nd respondent, the appropriate authority in the

respondent University shall consider the representation and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioner as well as the

Management of the self financing college. Orders shall be passed within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till

such time, the interim order granted by this Court shall remain in force.

This writ petition is ordered accordingly.