Kerala High Court
Unknown vs Appellant/4Th on 25 May, 2018
Bench: P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE 2018 / 23RD JYAISHTA, 1940
WA.No. 1071 of 2018 IN WPC. 24451/2017
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 24451/2017 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED
25-05-2018
APPELLANT/4TH RESPONDENT
SMT. SATHY V.,
SENIOR GRADE BINDER, CALICUT UNIVERSITY PRESS,
UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, THENHIPALAM,
MALAPPURAM - 673 536.
BY ADVS.SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN
SRI.ARUN THOMAS
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3:
1. RUPESH K.P.,
SENIOR GRADE BINDER, I.D. NO. 3925,
CALICUT UNIVERSITY PRESS,UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, THENHIPALAM,
MALAPPURAM - 673 536.
2. THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR,
CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O., PIN-673635.
3. THE REGISTRAR,UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O.,
PIN-673635.
4. SUMATHY M., ASSISTANT FOREMAN, CALICUT UNIVERSITY PRESS,
UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, THENHIPALAM,
MALAPPURAM - 673 536.
* Addl.R5.
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
[*ADDL. RESPONDENT NO.5 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 06.06.2018 IN
I.A.No.610 of 2018 IN W.A. 1071 OF 2018]
BY SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J.
BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, CALICUT UNIVERSITY
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-06-2018, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON
&
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JJ.
..............................................................................
W.A.No.1071 OF 2018
.........................................................................
Dated this the 13th June, 2018
JUDGMENT
Devan Ramachandran, J.
This appeal is at the instance of the 4th respondent in W.P. (C) 24451 of 2017. Even though there are various factual and forensic issues raised in this appeal, it would not be necessary for us to delve into or consider it in detail on account of certain intervening new events, as we have noticed, in these proceedings.
2. The controversy in question relates to the promotion to the post of Jr. Foreman (Binding) in the services of the Calicut University(Press). It is conceded by both the sides that, as per the relevant rules relating to the qualification for this post, the mandatory requirement is that the candidate should possess KGTE or MGTE in Composing (Lower).
3. The 4th respondent/appellant herein is having only a W.A.No.1071 OF 2018 2 Certificate in Printing Technology issued by the Department of Vocational Higher Secondary Education. She, however, asserts that she is entitled to be promoted as Jr. Foreman (Binding) on the contention that the Government has already, by an order dated 22.06.2007, declared this certificate to be equivalent to KGTE or MGTE for the purpose of this promotion.
4. The writ petition was heard in detail by the learned single Judge and after an assessment of all the relevant inputs and materials available on record, the learned Judge has concluded that though the Department of VHSE has certified that the Syllabus of the Certificate Course in Printing Technology includes Composing as a subject, there is no specific order recognising VHSE in Printing Technology as being equivalent to the qualification of KGTE/MGTE in Composing (Lower). It is this finding of the learned single Judge that has impelled the 4 th respondent in the writ petition/appellant herein to file this appeal.
5. As we have already indicated above, even though the appeal contains several asseverations relating to the merits of the findings of the learned single Judge, it would not be W.A.No.1071 OF 2018 3 necessary for us to consider it now, on account of a new fact, now brought to our notice, that the 4th respondent had in the meanwhile, even before the impugned judgment was delivered, filed another writ petition numbered as W.P.(C) 5724 of 2018, which culminated in a judgment of this Court, a copy of which has been produced on record as Annexure IV, along with the memorandum of appeal.
6. On an examination of the judgment afore mentioned, it is clear that the 4th respondent had filed the said writ petition seeking that the Government to take a decision on the very same issue, as to whether the certificate course in VHSE in Printing Technology can be deemed to be equivalent to the KGTE/MGTE and that a request for issuance of equivalency certificate by the competent Authority is seen made therein.
7. This request of the writ petitioner therein, viz., the appellant herein, was acceded to by the learned single Judge in Annexure IV judgment and directions have been issued, without going into the merits of any of the contentions raised therein, to the Government of Kerala to consider and pass orders on the W.A.No.1071 OF 2018 4 request made by the appellant herein in the representation pending before the Government
8. When we notice the above facts, it becomes inferentially clear, by the conduct of the appellant herein, that she has accepted the judgment of the learned single Judge impugned in this appeal. We say this because all what the learned single Judge has said in the impugned judgment is that there is no order as on date issued by the Government, treating these two qualifications to be equivalent to each other. It is precisely, therefore, that the appellant had moved the afore mentioned writ petition, leading to Annexure IV judgment, wherein her specific prayer was to direct the Government to consider this issue and pass appropriate orders.
9. The learned Sr. Counsel Shri Jaju Babu appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that our view afore recorded, that the appellant has accepted the judgment impugned before this Court, is perhaps not accurate because, according to him, this appeal can be maintained, notwithstanding the directions contained in Annexure IV judgment.
W.A.No.1071 OF 2018 5
10. Even though we have heard the learned Senior Counsel as above, we do not propose to go into the merits of this contention either, because we are certainly of the view that if the Government, in pursuance to the directions in Annexure IV judgment finds in favour of the appellant, then she would have nothing left to agitate in this appeal. If, on the contrary, the Government finds against her, then certainly it will be up to her to challenge such order, notwithstanding the contentions raised in this appeal.
11. Viewed from that perspective, it is not now necessary or relevant for us to consider the merits of this appeal and we are of the considered opinion that it will be better to leave it to the appellant to challenge the orders to be passed by the Government, in pursuance to the directions in Annexure IV judgment appropriately, if it becomes necessary for her to do in future.
12. In the result and in conspectus of our observations above, we close this appeal, without entering into the merits of any of the contentions of the appellant raised herein, but W.A.No.1071 OF 2018 6 granting her the liberty to deal with the orders to be issued by the Government pursuant to the directions in Annexure IV judgment appropriately and by invoking such remedies, as may be available to her.
This Appeal is thus disposed of.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE lk