Kerala High Court
R.Chitrajakumar vs Dr.A.Jayakrishnan(Age And Fathers ... on 12 October, 2010
Author: T.R. Ramachandran Nair
Bench: T.R.Ramachandran Nair
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
THURSDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2011 / 20TH SRAVANA 1933
Con.Case(C).No. 275 of 2011(S)
------------------------------
AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.13759/2010 Dated 12/10/2010
....................
PETITIONER(S):
---------------
R.CHITRAJAKUMAR , S/O.K.V.RAMAN VAIDYAN,
AGED 57 YEARS, SUBEDITOR, (SELECTION GRADE)
DEPARTMENT OF MALAYALAM LEXICON, UNIVERSITY OF
KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR
RESPONDENT(S):
---------------
DR.A.JAYAKRISHNAN(AGE AND FATHERS NAME
NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER)
THE VICE CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.PIN- 695 034.
BY ADV. SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, SC, KERALA UTY.
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 03/08/2011, THE COURT ON 11/08/2011 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
sts
COC.NO.275/2011
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:
ANNEX A COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 12/10/2010 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE
HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
ANNEX B COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.AD.D.III.1.2822/2010/1 DATED
21/12/2010 ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA,
TRIVANDRUM.
ANNEX C COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.ELECTION/2010-11 DATED 27/12/2010
ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, TRIVANDRUM.
ANNEX D COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 30/10/1991 IN O.P.NO.5564/1991
PASSED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM.
ANNEX E COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 6/8/2003 IN O.P.NO.22727/2001
PASSED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM.
RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:
ANNEX R1(A) COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE VICE-CHANCELLOR.
/TRUE COPY/
P.S.TO.JUDGE
sts
T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
C.O.(C) No. 275 of 2011-S
- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 11th day of August, 2011.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner in the writ petition is aggrieved by the alleged non compliance of the directions issued by this Court in Annexure A judgment, by the respondent.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
3. The matter was considered in the light of the affidavits filed by the respondent and the orders passed.
4. This is a case where the petitioner is claiming the post of Head of the Department of Malayalam Lexicon. The direction issued by this Court in the judgment was for a proper decision to be taken by the Vice Chancellor, in the absence of a duly constituted Syndicate, in the light of the judgments relied upon by the petitioner.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the judgments of this Court in Annexures D and E, have been referred to in Annexure A judgment and now the decision taken goes against the principles stated in those judgments also. In Annexure E judgment, the petitioner herein is CCC 275/2011 2 the petitioner. Therein, the plea was for grant of payment of salary in the U.G.C. scale of pay applicable to teachers. He was working as Sub Editor in Malayalam Lexicon of the University. The same was allowed in his favour and various benefits were granted. This Court, in para 6 of the judgment, noticed the earlier judgments of this Court and the decision of the Senate not to include the post of Editor and Sub Editor in the category of teachers. The said decision was quashed by this Court and the matter was remanded to the Senate for a fresh decision in accordance with law.
6. Annexures B and C are copies of the communications received by the petitioner, stating that his representation stands rejected. In Annexure B it is stated by the Registrar that the Vice Chancellor has rejected his request for headship in the Department of Malayalam Lexicon and Annexure C has communicated the decision that the Department of Malayalam Lexicon is included in the non-teaching category and therefore the petitioner's request to include his name in the teachers' constituency for election to the Senate cannot be agreed to.
7. The Vice Chancellor had filed an affidavit dated 6.4.2011 and the petitioner filed a reply affidavit also. Thereafter, the matter was heard and a CCC 275/2011 3 fresh affidavit has been filed by the Vice Chancellor by producing Annexure R1(a) which is a detailed communication issued to the petitioner with regard to the decision taken by the Vice Chancellor, since the petitioner's contention was that the decision taken as Annexure B does not reflect an appropriate decision at all and it had overlooked the impact of the judgments of this Court.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even in Annexure R1(a), the impact of the judgments have not been considered in detail. It is submitted that the view taken therein totally goes against the dictum laid down in Annexures D and E judgments.
9. Learned Standing Counsel for the University who appeared for the respondent, submitted that the direction was to consider the representations of the petitioner and all the aspects have been considered in the light of the Statutes, the decision of the Senate and the decision of the Academic Council.
10. Annexure R1(a) in para 19 states that the decision was taken after considering various judgments of this Court. It is mentioned therein that the Senate of the University, which is the competent authority to CCC 275/2011 4 institute Professorship, Readership and Lectureship, has not yet taken a decision to designate the Editorial Staff of Department of Malayalam Lexicon as teachers of the University, after the coming into force of the Kerala University Act, 1974 and the Kerala University First Ordinances, 1978.
11. I am not considering the various arguments raised by both parties about the legality of the findings, since I am of the view that the validity of the decision reflected in Annexure B and Annexure R1(a) will have to be considered if the petitioner challenges these orders in a separate writ petition. The only thing to be considered is whether there is total disobeyance of the directions of this Court. Even though it is vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a proper decision is not reflected even in Annexure R1(a), I am of the view that reasons have been stated by the Vice Chancellor in Annexure R1(a) to support the decision. Whether those reasons could be sustained or not, is a different aspect. In fact, in Annexure A judgment, this Court directed the Vice Chancellor to take a decision after considering various aspects, as it was found that a decision has not been taken at any level and accordingly the CCC 275/2011 5 direction was issued.
Therefore, I do not find that this is a fit case for initiating action under the Contempt of Courts Act, against the respondent. Leaving open the remedy of the petitioner to challenge Annexure B and Annexure R1(a), the C.C.C. is dismissed.
(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/