Challenge To Nine-Year-Old Appointment Through New Petitioners Not Possible If Earlier Petitions Were Dismissed For Delay: Kerala High Court

Kerala High Court: A Division Bench comprising Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P.G. Ajithkumar dismissed a writ appeal challenging the Single Judge's order that had directed fresh consideration of representations against a professor's appointment. They held that matters settled through earlier Public Interest Litigations cannot be re-agitated through fresh proceedings, even by different petitioners, especially after significant delay. Background Dr. K. Jayaprasad was appointed as Associate Professor in the Department of International Relations at the Central University of Kerala. He was appointed as Associate Professor on August 8, 2014, and later promoted to Professor on May 24, 2017, with retrospective effect from November 11, 2005. Dr. Jitha S.R., who was then working as Principal of S.N. College, Chempazhanthy, and Associate Professor and Head of the Department of Political Science, challenged said appointment. However, the matter had previously been subject to litigation through two Public Interest Litigations in 2018 and 2019, both of which were dismissed by the High Court. A Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court was also withdrawn. Arguments Dr. Jayaprasad presented three arguments. Firstly, previous writ petitions challenging his appointment had been dismissed by the High Court, and the Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court had also been unsuccessful. Secondly, even the first writ petition (No. 18242 of 2022) was dismissed due to significant delay after the appointment. Thirdly, the University had already issued an order after considering a specially constituted committee's report, making it improper to claim the order lacked reasoning. The respondent countered by asserting that the earlier writ petitions were filed by different persons and were allegedly meant to camouflage the illegality in the appointment. They argued that the dismissal of those petitions should not bar the present proceedings. Additionally, since the Special Leave Petition was dismissed as withdrawn, it should not prevent the current challenge. They also emphasized that the Single Judge had ordered fresh consideration of the representations after identifying illegalities in the appointment process. Court's Reasoning Firstly, the court acknowledged that while the earlier writ petitions were filed by different persons, they were instituted as public interest litigations. Though these judgments technically didn't create a legal bar for the current petitioner, the court found it inappropriate to allow re-agitation of the matter nine years after the initial appointment. Secondly, the court emphasized the principle of finality in judicial decisions. Given that the High Court had previously declined to entertain challenges to the appointment in 2018 and 2019 due to delay and subsequent promotion, allowing a fresh challenge would be improper. Thirdly, regarding the University's order (Ext.P21(a)), the court held that once the University had constituted a committee, obtained its report, and concluded that the appointment and promotion were in accordance with UGC guidelines, it was not within the court's jurisdiction to sit in appeal over this decision. Finally, citing Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Cooperative Society Ltd. v. Sipahi Singh [(1977) 4 SCC 145], the court reiterated that a writ of mandamus can only be granted where there is a statutory duty and a failure to discharge it (Para 14). Finding no such circumstance in the present case, the court held that directing reconsideration of representations was incorrect. The writ appeal was allowed. Date: 25-10-2024 Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 689Counsel for the Appellant: Sri. K.P. Satheeshan (Sr.), J. Vishnu, Anu Balakrishnan Nambiar, Vivek A.V., Sajith Kumar V. Counsel for the Respondents: K. Ramakumar (Sr.), T. Sanjay, T. Ramprasad Unni, S. Krishnamoorthy S, S.M. Prasanth, Sri. Unnikrishna Kaimal, Sr. GP, Sri. S. Krishnamoorthy, CGC Click Here To Read/Download The Order

Challenge To Nine-Year-Old Appointment Through New Petitioners Not Possible If Earlier Petitions Were Dismissed For Delay: Kerala High Court

Pranav Kumar

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Challenge To Nine-Year-Old Appointment Through New Petitioners Not Possible If Earlier Petitions Were Dismissed For Delay: Kerala High Court

Pranav Kumar

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers