Principal, Bishop Moore College vs State of Kerala, The Director of Collegiate Education, The Deputy Director of Collegiate and The Registrar, University of Kerala

T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.—The Petitioner is the Principal of Bishop Moore College, Mavelikkara. The issue is regarding the filling up of sanctioned strength of the post of Lecturer in the Economics Department. Exhibit P9 is the order passed by the Government wherein the view taken is that the request for one more post in Economics and Chemistry cannot be considered and the same is rejected.

The Petitioner''s case is that going by the work load assessment and fixation of staff strength of teaching staff for the year 2008-09 approved by the University as per Exhibit P2, three teachers have been permitted for the Economics Department and thereafter the Petitioner moved the Government for concurrence for permanent appointment showing one retirement vacancy in Economics along with the vacancies in other Departments. Exhibit P4 is the order passed by the Government lifting the ban of appointment of teachers in aided Colleges and granting permission for filling up of vacancies. Therein, the Petitioner''s College was not included. This led to the Petitioner filing another representation pursuant to which the Government passed an order as per Exhibit P6. Therein the permission was only for filling up two vacancies in Physics, one vacancy in Zoology, one vacancy of Mechanic and one vacancy of Herbarium Keeper. The Petitioner submitted Exhibit P7 representation claiming one more post in Economics Department by claiming 40 hours of work load in the Department. This Court by Exhibit P8 directed the Government to take a fresh decision, pursuant to which Exhibit P9 decision was taken.

In Exhibit P9, the view taken mainly is that in the staff fixation statement placed before the High Level Committee, work load of the Economics Department is shown as 34 hours due to the reason that six hours work load for Statistics Paper for B.A. Economics is allotted to Statistics Department. The argument of the Principal-Petitioner that the work load has to be calculated in terms of the provisions of the University Ordinance by reckoning the work load of Statistics along with Economics was not accepted.

The Petitioner contends that as far as the said six hours are concerned, the paper Quantitative Methods for Economic Analysis is taught by the teachers in Economics Department itself and it cannot therefore be reckoned for the purpose of Statistics Department. As far as Statistics Department is concerned, one post of Lecturer has been sanctioned and there are nine hours of work load for that Department. In this context, the Petitioner relies upon the decision of the Board of Studies of the University taken on 21.10.1995. Therein, the Board of Studies was of the view that at present there are no Statistics paper as such and therefore Statistics teachers have no claim and the Board requested the University to give necessary direction to the Principals of Colleges that Quantitative Methods for Economic Analysis should be taught only by Economics Teachers. Apart from that, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner Shri Santhosh Mathew submitted that it was for the University to finalise the work load assessment based on the requirement of the College and going by Exhibit P2, it can be seen that as far as Economics Department is concerned, considering the working hours as 40, three posts of Lecturers in Economics have been sanctioned by the University. Further it is pointed out that the Government is W.P.(C) No. 27451/09 -4-bound by the said proceedings taken by the University especially in the light of the Division Bench decision of this Court in State of Kerala v. Dr. Sina 2007(3) KLT 96.

There cannot be any dispute that it is upto the University to fix the work load while sanctioning the staff strength. The legal position that is declared by the Division Bench in Dr. Sina''s case (supra) is available in paragraph 10, which shows the following:

Scope of Section 57(2) of the Kerala University Act has to be tested in the light of the above mentioned statutory provisions. Power of the University in granting approval as well as sanctioning posts after ascertaining the workload and fixation of staff pattern as per the Statutes has not been taken away by the University Amendment Act 2 of 2005. Clear cut provisions have been made in the University Statutes and Ordinances as to how the workload has to be assessed and staff strength fixed so as to avoid unnecessary appointments. Further, the interest of the students is also to be safeguarded by appointing sufficient number of teachers without delay. Power is also conferred on the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education to take up the matter with the University in case there is any doubt with the approval granted. In appropriate cases Government can also examine the action taken by the Deputy Director and address the University through him.

Herein, the stand of the University is also evident from the proceedings Exhibit P2. The method adopted herein by the High Level Committee appears to be not to reckon the six hours along with 34 hours of Economics and by reckoning them with the Statistics Department. The said reason has resulted in passing Exhibit P9.

Evidently, the proceedings of the University have not been considered by the Government. Therefore, Exhibit P9 is quashed. There will be a direction to the Government to reconsider the matter in the light of Exhibit P2. The Government will reconsider the matter after hearing the Petitioner and the Petitioner will produce the document, namely, Exhibit P2 before the Government which will be duly considered and appropriate decision will be taken within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.