Ext.P5 order, by which the 3rd respondent has nominated the 4th respondent as member to the Syndicate of the 2nd respondent University, as well as Ext.P7 notification made by the 2nd respondent University on the basis of Ext.P5 are challenged by the petitioner, who is an Associate Professor in the Department of Mechanical Engineering in the 2nd respondent University.
2. The petitioner alleges that as per Section 17(1) (vii) of the Cochin University of Science and Technology Act, 1986 (for short, “the Act), the power to nominate a member to the Syndicate from the field of Industry and Commerce vests with the Chancellor of the University. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the nomination of the 4th respondent, as per Ext.P5, by the 3rd respondent is void as the 3rd respondent has absolutely no authority to make nomination to the Syndicate under the provisions referred to above. It is alleged that the 1st respondent, who is the Chancellor, has not so far made any nomination exercising the aforesaid power under the Act. Therefore, he alleges that Ext.P7 notification made by the 2nd respondent University on the basis of Ext.P5 is per se illegal and unsustainable. The petitioner further alleges that the 4th respondent is not an expert in the field of Industry or Commerce and he is only a merchant in textile and jewellery and he was nominated only on political influence and pressure. It was pointed out that the inclusion of academic and other experts in the constitution of Senate is with the object of securing their contribution in the field of higher education and research. The aforesaid object of the University would be defeated if persons not having expertise or those who have not made contributions to the concerned field, are nominated to the Syndicate; it is alleged. It is with this background, the petitioner has come up before this Court.
3. In the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent, it is contended that by virtue of file No.17617/B2/2013/H.Edn., the State Government had submitted the bio-data of the 4th respondent for consideration for nomination to the Syndicate of Cochin University of Science and Technology by the Chancellor. The Chancellor has approved the inclusion of the 4th respondent on 09.06.2011; and thus, the Chancellor has nominated the 4th respondent to be included in the Syndicate under Section 17(1)(vii) of the Act as an expert from the field of Industry and Commerce; it is contended. According to the 1st respondent, there is no provision in the Act necessitating the Chancellor to issue a formal order to give effect the nomination and as and when the Chancellor approves a person from the materials placed before him, it shall amount to a valid nomination for the purpose of Section 17(1)(vii) of the Act. The argument of the petitioner that the 4th respondent's nomination is by the 3rd respondent is not true and correct as the 3rd respondent has only circulated the name of the 4th respondent for the purpose of recommendation and nomination by the Chancellor. By virtue of the approval of that name on 09.06.2011 by the Chancellor, the 4th respondent was validly nominated by the Chancellor; it is contended. Therefore, according to the 1st respondent, nomination of the 4th respondent to the Syndicate of the 2nd respondent University is in accordance with the mandate contained in Section 17(1)(vii) of the Act and it is valid. Therefore, they prayed for a dismissal of the writ petition.
4. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent University, it is stated that the petitioner is an Associate Professor working under the respondent University in the Department of Mechanical Engineering in School of Engineering. They have contended that on the basis of Ext.P5, they had issued Ext.P7 notification dated 13.06.2011 notifying that the 4th respondent was nominated to the Syndicate of the Cochin University of Science and Technology by the 1st respondent as an expert from the field of Industry and Commerce as per Section 17(1)(vii) of the Act. According to them, the terms of the 4th respondent's office were subject to the provisions of the Act and Statutes thereunder as amended from time to time with effect from 09.06.2011, i.e., with effect from the date of nomination. According to the University, it is clear from Ext.P5 that the assent was obtained from the Chancellor. It is also stated that pursuant to the issuance of Ext.P7, the 4th respondent is continuing as Syndicate member. They have pointed out that the 4th respondent had preferred a complaint before the Kalamassery Police Station, alleging that the petitioner had circulated a false and fabricated story thereby defaming the 4th respondent. FIR was lodged and Crime No.176/2012 was registered under Section 66A(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, which is pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Aluva. They have also pointed out that the 4th respondent has alleged that the petitioner had forwarded news items to several persons including University employees via e-mail to defame the 4th respondent. It is further pointed out that against the registration of crime, the petitioner has preferred Crl.M.C.No.1499/2012 before this Court, which is still pending. The petitioner also preferred WP (C) No.29032/2012 alleging that the 4th respondent misused the position of Syndicate Member and has engaged a private lawyer at the expense of the respondent University. The order issued by the University was also challenged therein, which was closed by this Court observing that the apprehension of the petitioner and the challenge against Ext.P5 was not liable to be entertained as the respondent University has not sanctioned or paid any amount as fees payable in respect of Crl.M.C. No.1499/2012. The respondent University has taken the stand that the writ petition is filed with mala fide intention and with the intention to tarnish the respondent University as well as the 4th respondent.
5. In the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner, it is stated that as per Section 17(vii) of the Act, the power is vested with the Chancellor to nominate an expert from the field of Industry and Commerce as member to the Syndicate of the University and as per Section 17(viii), the power is vested with the Government to nominate five members of the Senate to Syndicate, of whom, one shall be a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the power vested with each authority should be exercised by that authority itself and the Government cannot exercise the power vested in the Governor as Chancellor of the University. According to the petitioner, proceedings nominating a person is required and therefore, a formal communication of such decision has to be forwarded from the office of the Chancellor to the University though the provisions of the University Act do not prescribe any mode.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Advocate General and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent University.
7. Section 17(1)(vii) of the Act provides for the nomination of an expert from the field of industry and commerce to the Syndicate of the respondent University by the Chancellor. The petitioner alleges that the 4th respondent has one textile shop under his proprietorship and he is a partner to a jewelery and he has neither qualification in the field of Industry and Commerce nor has any experience or exposure in the aforesaid field. Referring to Ext.P8, which is a copy of a news item reported in Mangalam daily published on 12.06.2011, the learned counsel for the petitioner alleges that no useful purpose would be served by the nomination of the 4th respondent and the very object of the statute would be defeated if the 4th respondent is nominated.
8. The learned Advocate General, per contra, would submit that the writ petition is filed with mala fide intention and with an intention to tarnish the respondent University as well as the 4th respondent and to wreak vengeance on the 4th respondent having preferred police complaint against the petitioner.
9. The petitioner has a further case that the 4th respondent was continuing in the Syndicate of the 2nd respondent University without any valid nomination from the Chancellor of the University. It was argued that the 1st respondent has not exercised his power under Section 17(1)(vii) of the Act to nominate an expert in the field of industry and commerce to the Syndicate of the 2nd respondent University and the power to nominate a member to the Syndicate of the 2nd respondent University under Section 17(1)(vii) of the Act is within the domain of the 1st respondent. It was further argued that the 1st respondent has not issued any proceeding, nominating the 4th respondent as a member to the Syndicate of the 2nd respondent University. Against this allegation, an answer is given by the learned Advocate General. The only mandate under Section 17(1)(vii) of the Act is that the persons from industry and commerce should be appointed on the nomination of the Governor. It is pointed out that the University Act does not contain any specific procedure for nomination. It is left with the discretion of the Chancellor to collect information for the purpose of making nomination. In order to enable the Chancellor to complete the process of nomination, the Chancellor is free to look into any material available to him and he can nominate any person, who is having required qualification, from any material placed before him. The safest material to be relied on would be names proposed or circulated by the available sources; it was argued.
10. However, in this case, the State Government submitted the bio-data of the 4th respondent for consideration for nomination to the Syndicate of the respondent University. It was contended by the 1st respondent that the Chancellor has nominated the 4th respondent to be included in the Syndicate under Section 17(1)(vii) as an expert from the field of industry and commerce. There is no provision in the Act necessitating the Chancellor to issue a formal order to effect nomination.
11. As rightly pointed out by the learned Advocate General, when the Chancellor approves a person from the materials placed before him, that amounts to a valid nomination for the purpose of Section 17(1)(vii) of the Act. Here, one has to bear in mind that the term, “nomination” means the act of suggesting that one should be chosen for a role. The word is synonymous with naming, proposing or recommending. It is the process recommending a person for confirmation. In the instant case, the name made available by the Government was found reliable and safe material to be considered by the Chancellor for nominating. Thus, the Chancellor approved the name of the 4th respondent. On the basis of that, Ext.P5 formal order was issued by the 3rd respondent. Therefore, it can be seen that the nomination of the 4th respondent to the Syndicate of the respondent University is in accordance with the mandate contained in Section 17(1)(vii) of the Cochin University of Science and Technology Act, 1986. What is intended by the Act is to include persons with expertise and knowledge from the diverse cross-section of the society so that the collective wisdom of such experts would guide the University to achieve its objectives.
12. The 1st respondent, placing reliance on the materials placed before him, in his wisdom, has selected the 4th respondent to be nominated as a member of the Syndicate of the University. This Court cannot sit in appeal over the said decision in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, this Court is of the view that there is absolutely no reason for interference in the matter.
Therefore, the writ petition fails; and accordingly, it is dismissed.
bka/-
Sd/-
A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JUDGE