Munmun Kaur
Published On: February 10, 2022 at 12:03 IST
Recently, the Supreme Court observed that under Statute 18 framed by the Kerala Government, a teacher who was being considered for Head of the Department on a rational basis would not be prohibited from being considered for the appointment when a second rotational term is due if he/she during the first term makes a request of being relieved from the responsibility for academic reason.
The observation was made by the Bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and AS Oka while dealing with the Special Leave Petition filed against an Order of the Kerala High Court. By this Order the High Court had set aside Single Judge’s judgment and directed the Cochin University of Science and Technology to nominate Dr. Rajitha Kumar S (Respondent 1) as the HOD/Director of School of Management Studies of Cochin University.
The facts of the Case were that the Appellant was senior to the Respondent. The Appellant expressed his unwillingness to be nominated as HOD due to his preoccupation with teaching and research. Therefore, the next eligible Professor was nominated.
Before the expiry of his tenure, the Appellant wrote to the Registrar of the University communicating his willingness for appointment as Director/HOD but the Respondent, who was next in seniority opposed the claim.
The University’s Syndicate, after taking note of the precedents where seniority was given preference and senior professors were nominated as HOD after they relinquished their actual chance opined that it was the Appellant who had to be considered.
The Single Judge on March 1, 2021, directed the Cochin University of Science and Technology to nominate Respondent 1 as HOD/Director.
On Appeal, the Division Bench overturned the finding returned by the learned Single Judge on the premise that Statute 18 conspicuously takes note of seniority on a rotational basis for a period of three years and once the relinquishment was made by the Appellant in terms of the Statute 18, the Appellant has foregone his right of consideration for all times to come.
The Bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and AS Oka observed that what is being envisaged from Statute 18 is that teachers who are eligible according to seniority are being considered for HOD on a rotational basis for a period of three years if shows unwillingness or makes a request to be relieved from such responsibility for academic reason, can certainly be relieved for that rotation but there is no prohibition which deprives the teacher from being considered for appointment as HOD when the second rotational term becomes due.
The Supreme Court observed
Although there is no prohibition under Statute 18, still if two views are possible and the University has interpreted in the way which serves the purpose keeping in view the paramount consideration to the academic and research work and the seniority of the teachers while considering for appointment as HOD/Director, School of Management Studies which was judicially examined and upheld by learned Single Judge of the High Court.
The Supreme Court allowed the Appeal and set aside the High Court’s Order.