Kerala High Court
Dr. Jacob K. Daniel vs Mahatma Gandhi University on 20 November, 2015
Author: Antony Dominic
Bench: Antony Dominic, P.V.Asha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC
&
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA
WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2017/29TH BHADRA, 1939
RP.No. 3 of 2016 IN WA.339/2015
---------------------------------
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WA 339/2015 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA
DATED 20.11.2015
REVIEW PETITIONER/1ST RESPONDENT:
---------------------------------
DR. JACOB K. DANIEL
LECTURER IN MATHEMATICS,
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, MUTTOM,
THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN-685 587.
BY ADVS.SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY
SMT.N.SANTHA
SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO
SRI.S.A.ANAND
RESPONDENTS/2ND RESPONDENT:
---------------------------
1. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY
PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM-686 560,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.
2. STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.O.V.RADHAKRISHNAN (SR.)
R1 BY ADV. SMT.K.RADHAMANI AMMA
R1 BY ADV. SRI.ANTONY MUKKATH
R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
20-09-2017 ALONG WITH RP. 151/2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ANTONY DOMINIC & P.V.ASHA, JJ.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
R.P.No.3 of 2016 in W.A.No.339of 2015 &
R.P.No.151 of 2016 in W.A.442 of 2014
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 20th day of September, 2017
ORDER
Antony Dominic, J.
These review petitions are filed by the party respondents in W.A.Nos.339/15 and 442/14. The aforesaid writ appeals, arose out of W.P.(C).5032/10 and O.P.3818/03 respectively. The latter original petition was allowed by a detailed judgment dated 8th January 2014 and the former writ petition was allowed following the judgment in the latter. By a common judgment rendered by this court on 20th January 2015, the writ appeals, which were filed by the Mahatma Gandhi University and others against the aforesaid two judgments, were allowed. It is seeking review of these judgments, the present review petitions are filed.
2. We heard the counsel for the petitioners, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the University and its officials.
3. The counsel for the petitioners raised two contentions. The first one was that finding in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the R.P.Nos.3 & 151 of 2016 : 2 : judgment, that self financing colleges were not run from out of the University funds is incorrect. The second contention was that the findings in paragraph 14 of the judgment that in the appointment of the review petitioners, the procedure prescribed in the University Act and Statutes for appointment were not followed, is incorrect.
4. Insofar as the first contention that self financing colleges were not run utilising University funds is concerned, said finding as contained in the judgment is sought to be impugned, mainly relying on Annexures A1 and A2 in R.P.151/16. Annexure A2 is an interim order passed by this court in W.P.(C)23194/13, relying on which Annexure A1 order was issued by the Government of Kerala. In that order, it is stated that in Annexure A2 order, this court has stated that thus:
"It is also pertinent that the learned Counsel for the University was not able to point out any provision in the statute wherein the grant-in-aid and the self financing fund are treated separately and it has to be presumed that the funds, whether it be grant-in-aid or generated by the University comes into the common coffers of the University."
R.P.Nos.3 & 151 of 2016 : 3 :
5. It is, therefore, stated that the finding of this court that the funds of the self financing university do not form part of University funds is incorrect. However, we are unable to accept this plea. Reading of paragraphs 13 and 14 this court has made extensive reference to the various provisions of the University Act and the Statutes and it is on that basis, this court has arrived at a conclusion that self financing institutions established by the University are not run on the basis of the University funds. That apart, we also find that Annexure A1 order was issued on the basis of an interim order passed by this court and the writ petition itself was disposed of by judgment dated 24.2.2015. For these reasons, we are not able to conclude that the aforesaid conclusion of this court is vitiated by any error to be corrected in a review petition.
6. Insofar as the second contention that in the matter of appointment of the petitioners, the procedure prescribed in the University Act and Statutes for regular appointments were followed, is concerned, reliance is placed on Annexures A6 and A7 in R.P.151/16. Though these documents do, prima facie, R.P.Nos.3 & 151 of 2016 : 4 : substantiate the plea now raised by the review petitioners, this contention of the review petitioners is answered by the University in its counter affidavit following that in the absence of any other procedure, the aforesaid procedure was followed for the purpose of transparency. This certainly is a plausible explanation and, therefore, in a review petition we cannot adjudicate this contention any further.
7. We are not satisfied that any error apparent on the face of the record justifying invocation of the power of the review jurisdiction of this court, has been made out by the petitioners.
Review petitions fail and it are dismissed accordingly.
sd/-
ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE sd/-
P.V.ASHA JUDGE jes