Vijayanand K.S vs State Of Kerala Represented By The on 19 November, 2010

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Vijayanand K.S vs State Of Kerala Represented By The on 19 November, 2010

Bench: K.T.Sankaran

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 34226 of 2010(C)


1. VIJAYANAND K.S, LECTURER INFORMATION
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE  OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM)

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN

 Dated :19/11/2010

 O R D E R
                          K.T.SANKARAN, J.
             ------------------------------------------------------
                  W.P.(C). NO. 34226 OF 2010 C
             ------------------------------------------------------
           Dated this the 19th day of November, 2010


                                JUDGMENT

The petitioner is working as Lecturer in Information Technology, Government Engineering College, Idukki. It is stated that he was appointed as per the proceedings of the Directorate of Technical Education dated 8.2.2006. Ext.P3 notification dated 15.4.2008 was issued by the Higher Education (G) Department for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in nine branches including Information Technology. The method of appointment was by open selection. The qualifications prescribed as per Ext.P3 are Ph.D. with First Class Degree at Bachelors or Masters level in the appropriate branch of Engineering Technology and three years' experience in Teaching/Industry/Research at the level of Lecturer or equivalent. It is also stated that the qualifications of the applicants shall be considered with reference to the last date of the application. In the Notes to Ext.P3, it is stated that candidates applying for the post of Assistant Professors are exempted from possessing Ph.D. but they have to acquire Ph.D. within seven years of the appointment to the post of Assistant Professor as stipulated by the AICTE. W.P.(C) NO.34226 OF 2010 :: 2 ::

2. The petitioner states that there were no qualified candidates to be appointed in the branch of Information Technology, pursuant to Ext.P3 notification. According to the petitioner, he acquired the qualifications on 2.9.2010, two years after the issue of Ext.P3 notification. The petitioner states that he has got four years' teaching experience in the Government Engineering College, Idukki and two years' teaching experience in TKM Institute of Technology, Kollam as Lecturer. The petitioner got information under the Right to Information Act that in the branch of Information Technology, there are nine posts of Assistant Professors, of which, five posts are lying vacant. Pointing out these facts, the petitioner submitted Ext.P7 representation dated 18.10.2010 to the Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department. The prayer in Ext.P7 representation is to appoint the petitioner as Assistant Professor in Information Technology branch in any one of the open vacancies in existence.

3. The reliefs prayed for in the Writ Petition are the following:

"(i) declare that the petitioner is entitled to be considered for appointment by promotion appointment to the post of Assistant Professor W.P.(C) NO.34226 OF 2010 :: 3 ::

(Information Technology) in any of the existing vacancy and to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order, or direction commanding the respondents to consider him for promotion as Assistant Professor (Information Technology) w.e.f. the date on which he is qualified;

(ii) Grant such other reliefs as the court may deem fit to grant."

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would be satisfied if a direction is issued to the first respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P7 representation in accordance with law. It is stated that as per the Special Rules, the appointment of Assistant Professors in Information Technology is to be made by promotion of Lecturers and, in their absence, by direct recruitment. It is not stated in the Writ Petition as to whether any notification was issued after Ext.P3 notification inviting applications for filling up the vacancies by direct recruitment. Even if no such notification was issued, the prayer in Ext.P7 as such cannot be granted. If the vacancies are to be filled up, a notification shall be issued inviting applications and then only the question of W.P.(C) NO.34226 OF 2010 :: 4 ::

appointment arises. However, since the petitioner states that five vacancies exist, the first respondent shall consider Ext.P7 and decide whether a notification should be issued inviting applications for filling up the vacancies. Ext.P7 shall be disposed of by the first respondent in the manner indicated above, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. It is made clear that I have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the contentions put forward by the petitioner. It is also made clear that before the disposal of Ext.P7 representation, no opportunity of being heard need be afforded to the petitioner and the petitioner waives any such right. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the Writ Petition and certified copy of the judgment before the first respondent.

The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

(K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court