Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1)Department of Rachana Sareera
2)Department of Kriya Sareera
3)Swasthivridha Whereas Dr.K.G.Beena gave option for following three subjects:
1)Kaumarabrithya
2)Swasthavritha
3)Kayachikitsa The options were given on 05.05.2000. vide order dated 30.05.2000 Vaidyaratnam Ayurveda College, Thirssur allocated department of Rachana Sareera to Dr.K.G.Beena with lien in Kaumarabrithya as lecturer whereas Dr.Praveen.M.P vide order dated 12.06.2002 was given the department of Rachana Sareera WP(C) NO. 3827 OF 2020 & con cases as tutor. Before that on 02.09.1995 while approving the mutual transfer, it was made clear that as per inter-collegiate transfer, person would forgo the previous service and the appointment would be considered as fresh appointment.

4. Since Dr.K.G.Beena was given department of Kaumarabrithya but there was no post of lecturer in that specialty, she preferred W.P.(C)No.29200/2007 before this Court and this Court vide order dated 03.10.2007 issued directions to Calicut University as it then was, having the deep and pervasive control as the college was affiliated with the said University, to pass an order on the representation of Dr.K.G.Beena as expeditiously as possible. University rejected the case of Dr.K.G.Beena, resulted into filing of the writ petition bearing No.7529/2008. This Court vide judgment dated 10.08.2009 noticed that the University had accepted the allotment of Dr.K.G.Beena to the Department of Rachana Sareera with lien in the Department of Kaumarabrithya with an intention that the lien in Kaumarabrithya was to allot Dr.K.G.Beena the department in future ie., as and when the post of lecturer arises, which did not materialise owing to the fact that Government did not sanction WP(C) NO. 3827 OF 2020 & con cases the staff pattern in accordance with the 13+1 department system. In the previous judgment, had directed the Government to approve the implementation of the 13+1 department system. Therefore, direction was issued to allot Dr.K.G.Beena in the department of Kaumarabrithya in accordance with the lien recognized with effect from 01.07.2000. The aforementioned order was assailed by the 7th respondent, who was already discharging the duties of Tutor by preferring the writ Appeal No.2385/2009. The Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 22.12.2009 observed that the parties to the appeal would file a representation before the University concerning their claims and on receipt of the representation the University shall take a fresh decision on the claim of Dr.K.G.Beena for accommodation in the post of lecturer in Kaumarabrithya, within a period of three months. The University of Calicut passed an order dated 02.05.2011 stating that sanction was accorded by Vice Chancellor on 28.03.2011 to approve the report submitted by Syndicate Sub-committee and therefore, the management is given liberty to take necessary action to accommodate Dr.K.G.Beena in the department of Kaumarabrithya as and when the vacancy of WP(C) NO. 3827 OF 2020 & con cases lecturer is created and the claim of the promotion of Dr.Praveen.M.P for posting in the department of Rachana Sareera can be allowed only when Dr.K.G.Beena was accommodated in the department of Kaumarabrithya. The aforementioned order was challenged by the 7th respondent Dr.P.V.Madhusudhanan vide W.P.(C)No.13960/2011 and also by Dr.K.G.Beena vide W.P.

6. Sri.R.Gopakumar.R.Thaliyal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Dr.Praveen.M.P. submitted that once the lien of Dr.K.G.Beena was kept as department of Thiruvananthapuram, the impugned order Ext.P17 allocating the department of Rachana Sareera as permanent to Dr.K.G.Beena is wholly erroneous much less against the options exercised by Dr.K.G.Beena ie., two other subjects Swasthavritha and Kayachikitsa were also available and as regards the vacancies in the subject Swasthavritha, there were three sanctioned posts and three persons were discharging the duties of reader and tutors whereas in Kayachikitsa, there were 5 posts and 5 persons were discharging the duties one as professor, one reader, one lecturer and two tutors. The respondents has not referred to any provisions of rules for maintaining the seniority either WP(C) NO. 3827 OF 2020 & con cases department-wise or subject-wise, though apparently declared to be subject-wise, but Dr.K.G.Beena cannot be given seniority in Rachana Sareera as she had no lien as the lien was with some other subjects.

14. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book.

15. The fact that Dr.Praveen.M.P. had joined as tutor in the college- 1st respondent against leave vacancy on 07.03.1994 and was given a regular vacancy with effect from 01.08.1995 in WP(C) NO. 3827 OF 2020 & con cases the department of Rachana Sareera that too only on achieving the PG qualification in 2009, promoted as Assistant Professor and Associate Professor with effect from 05.06.2009 and 11.04.2018 are not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that at the relevant point of time, there were seven department in the college and on bifurcation in 2005, 13+1 departments were carved out and options were invited in the same very year from respective faculty members. Dr.Praveen.M.P had given an option for three subjects whereas Dr.K.G.Beena, for three subjects. Thus Dr.K.G.Beena had never opted for "Rachana Sareera". Considering the option, respondent Calicut University as it then was till December 2009 when it was bifurcated into Kerala University of Health Sciences, assigned the subject of Rachana Sareera to Dr.K.G.Beena with a lien in Kaumarabrithya, as, though there was sanctioned posts available in the subject opted by Dr.K.G.Beena, all were manned by the faculty. Though there had been a direction by this Court for creation of posts in Kaumarabrithya but no action was taken thereon. Be that as it may. The arrangements as done after 2005 ought to have continued but aggrieved of having assigned the lien, WP(C) NO. 3827 OF 2020 & con cases Dr.K.G.Beena had approached this Court leading to series of writ petitions as noticed above, which I would not be repeating in order to avoid repetition. All the orders passed by the University of Calicut challenged from time to time. Directions have been issued to continue with the arrangements of allowing Dr.K.G.Beena to impart the subject of Rachana Sareera with a lien in Kaumarabrithya, with intend that as and when the post would be either fallen vacant or created, Dr.K.G.Beena would be accommodated. But when the last order dated 13.09.2017 was passed, it was noticed that though the post of professor had fallen vacant in the department of Kaumarabrithya and was eligible for the said post in the said department, has gone unnoticed in the impugned order dated January, 2019 passed after almost one and half year. Thus the order impugned reveals not only non-application of mind, lacks certain reasons of having not noticed the occurrence of vacancy. A quietus would have been brought had the Kerala University of Health Sciences noticed the factum of occurrence of the vacancy of professor and it is a matter of record that Dr.K.G.Beena had been discharging the duties of Associate Professor in Rachana Sareera and case of WP(C) NO. 3827 OF 2020 & con cases the promotion of Dr.Praveen.M.P., petitioner in two writ petitions was ordered to be kept pending. There was no occasion for Kerala Health Sciences to determine the Seniority as it tantamount to reviewing the options submitted by Dr.K.G.Beena, which is a total illegality and a contumacious act. No rules as applicable to viz-a-viz the seniority department-wise had been referred to. Had the University of Health Sciences noticed the occurrence of the vacancy on account of superannuation or demission of any of the faculty in Kaumarabrithya way back in 2017, the controversy would not have reached this Court. After all the parties have undergone the series of litigations as noticed above. A subsequent event had also arisen in as much as that Sri.Madhusudhanan has also left the job. Thus, there are more than one vacancy in the department of Kaumarabrithya now the question would arise again, in case this Court does not notice the grievance of Dr.KG.Beena of having been assigned in the parent department ie., if lien assigned in the seniority department-wise, I am of the view that it is a fit case were respondent University is required to revisit the issue on some of the important points which this Court noticed over and above the points which the WP(C) NO. 3827 OF 2020 & con cases respective parties would raise at a relevant point of time: