This contempt case is filed alleging that the respondent herein, who is the Vice Chancellor of the Kerala Agricultural University has willfully disobeyed Annexure A1 judgment delivered by this Court on 8.3.2013 in W.P.(C)No.5983 of 2013. The petitioner has averred that though a certified copy of Annexure A1 judgment was communicated to the respondent by registered post along with a letter dated 5.4.2013 and it was received by the respondent on 9.4.2013, he has not placed Exts.P3 and P4 representations before the Executive Committee of the Kerala Agricultural University and that as a result thereof, the Executive Committee has not taken any decision on the said representations. 2. When the contempt case came up for hearing today, Sri.Babu Joseph Kuruvathazha, learned standing counsel appearing for the Kerala Agricultural University submitted with reference to the averments in the affidavit dated 9.7.2014 sworn to by the respondent that the petitioner's representation was considered and rejected by the Executive Committee of the University that met on 17.6.2014, that thereupon the University has issued an order dated 24.6.2014 and that the petitioner has filed W.P.(C)No.17348 of 2014 challenging the said order. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that in such circumstances this contempt case may be closed.
3. It is no doubt true that the direction issued by this Court in Annexure A1 judgment has now been complied with. The implementation was not within the time limit stipulated by this Court in Annexure A1 judgment but one year and three months after Annexure A1 judgment was delivered. The events that transpired in the interregnum have been set out in detail in paragraphs 1 to 7 (both inclusive) of the order passed by me on 9.6.2014, whereby I recalled the order dispensing with the personal appearance of the respondent, directed him to be present in person in this Court on 17.6.2014 and also stayed all further proceedings for placement of Assistant Professors as Associate Professors under the Career Advancement Programme. That part of the order directing the respondent Vice Chancellor to appear in person was challenged in Contempt Appeal No.8 of 2014 and by order passed on 16.6.2014, a Division Bench of this Court has stayed the said direction. Paragraphs 1 to 7 of the order passed by this Court on 9.6.2014 are extracted below:-
“This contempt case is filed alleging that the respondent herein, who is the Vice Chancellor of the Kerala Agricultural University has wilfully disobeyed Annexure A1 judgment delivered by this Court on 8.3.2013 in W.P.(C)No.5983 of 2013. The petitioner has averred that though a certified copy of Annexure A1 judgment was communicated to the respondent by registered post along with a letter dated 5.4.2013 and it was received by the respondent on 9.4.2013, he has not so far placed Exts.P3 and P4 representations before the Executive Committee of the Kerala Agricultural University and that as a result thereof, the Executive Committee has not taken any decision on the said representations.
2. The petitioner is an Assistant Professor in the service of the Kerala Agricultural University. She entered service as Assistant Professor on 24.11.1999. She was promoted to the category of Assistant Professor (Senior Scale) with effect from 1.9.2006. After entry in service, she acquired a Doctoral degree on 19.9.2006. The next promotion post for Assistant Professor (Senior Scale) with a Doctoral degree is Associate Professor. The screening committee which considered the petitioner for promotion to the post of Associate Professor did not recommend her for such promotion. Aggrieved thereby, she filed Ext.P3 representation dated 20.9.2010 before the Vice Chancellor of the Kerala Agricultural University. When no action was taken, she filed Ext.P4 representation dated 27.6.2012 before the Vice Chancellor enclosing with it a copy of the previous representation. The writ petition was filed seeking a direction to the Vice Chancellor of the Kerala Agricultural University to consider Exts.P3 and P4 representations within a time limit to be fixed by this Court.
3. When the writ petition came up for admission hearing before me on 6.3.2013, the learned standing counsel appearing for the Kerala Agricultural University was directed to get instructions as to whether an Assistant Professor who has not been selected by the Selection Committee for promotion to the post of Associate Professor can represent against such action to the Vice Chancellor or any other authority of the University. When the writ petition again came up on 8.3.2013, the learned standing counsel for the Kerala Agricultural University submitted that the Executive Committee of the Kerala Agricultural University is the authority competent to consider the said grievance. Reference was made to the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Vice Chancellor v. Nandakumar [2012 (2) KLT 315]. It was also submitted that Exts.P3 and P4 representations have been received by the Vice Chancellor and are pending. It was in the light of the aforesaid submission that the writ petition was disposed of by Annexure A1 judgment delivered on 8.3.2013.
4. The period of four months stipulated therein expired on 9.7.2013. Eleven months have passed thereafter. The Vice Chancellor of the Kerala Agricultural University did not move for enlargement of time within the stipulated period. After the period prescribed by the court expired, the Kerala Agricultural University filed I.A.No.10530 of 2013 seeking enlargement of time by a further period of one month from 15.7.2013. That application was accompanied by C.M.Appln.No.3862 of 2013 to condone the delay of 53 days in filing I.A.No.10530 of 2013. The said applications came up before me on 2.8.2013 and having regard to the averment in the affidavit filed in support of the application that the petitioner's representations will be considered by the Executive Committee by including it as an agenda in the next meeting scheduled to be held on 13.8.2013, the consideration of I.A.No.10530 of 2013 was adjourned to 16.8.2013. But later, the Kerala Agricultural University filed I.A.No.11739 of 2013 seeking enlargement of time up to 10.9.2013 to comply with the direction issued by this Court in Annexure A1 judgment. In the affidavit filed in support of the said application it was stated that on account of blockade of the Secretariat on 13.8.2013 the meeting of the Executive Committee could not be held. It was also stated that next meeting will be held on 31.8.2013.
5. When this contempt case first came up on 22.7.2013, it was adjourned to 29.7.2013 so as to enable the learned standing counsel to get instructions. On 29.7.2013 it was adjourned to 30.7.2013 so as to enable the learned standing counsel to get instructions from the Vice Chancellor of the Kerala Agricultural University as to whether as directed by this Court in Annexure A1 judgment, he has placed Exts.P3 and P4 representations submitted by the petitioner before the Executive Committee of the Kerala Agricultural University and if the representations have been placed, the date on which they were placed. The learned standing counsel was also directed to ascertain whether at any point of time after 8.3.2013, the Executive Committee of the Kerala Agricultural University had met and whether Exts.P3 and P4 representations were considered by the said Committee.
6. When the contempt case came up on 30.7.2013 it was adjourned to 31.7.2013. On that day it was ordered to be posted along with the application for enlargement of time filed in the writ petition on 2.8.2013. When orders were not forthcoming, this Court admitted the contempt case on 27.8.2013 and issued urgent notice returnable in ten days to the respondent. The contempt case was also ordered to be posted on 9.9.2013. When the contempt case came up for hearing on 9.9.2013, the learned standing counsel appearing for the Kerala Agricultural University submitted that the draft minutes of the meeting of the Executive Committee held on 31.8.2013 will be made available for perusal at 10.15 a.m. on 11.9.2013 and submitted that the personal appearance of the Vice Chancellor of the Kerala Agricultural University dispensed with. Acting on that submission, by order passed on 9.9.2013, I dispensed with the personal appearance of the Vice Chancellor of the Kerala Agricultural University. The contempt case was ordered to be posted on 11.9.2013. On 11.9.2013 when the contempt case came up for hearing before me, the learned standing counsel appearing for the Kerala Agricultural University submitted that the Executive Committee will reconsider the petitioner's grievances at its next meeting. The draft minutes of the meeting of the Executive Committee was not made available. That submission was recorded and the contempt case was adjourned to 30.9.2013.
7. Such a course of action was required for the reason that the Vice Chancellor had in the meanwhile rejected Exts.P3 and P4 representations subject to ratification by the Executive Committee. Annexure R1 (a) dated 16.8.2013 is a copy of the order passed by the Vice Chancellor. The order states that it is issued considering the urgency of the situation. The fact remains that the Executive Committee of the Kerala Agricultural University has not so far taken a final decision on the petitioner's representations though the time limit stipulated by this Court expired long back and even the extended time sought by the Kerala Agricultural University has expired. In other words, apart from the fact that no application has been filed seeking enlargement of time after 10.9.2013, the fact remains that nearly nine months have passed without a decision being taken on the petitioner's representation. In other words, the Vice Chancellor of the Kerala Agricultural University and its Executive Committee have paid scant regard to the directions issued by this Court which to say the least, is unbecoming of them.”
4. It is evident from the facts stated above that for no justifiable reason, the petitioner was driven to the necessity of filing a contempt case in this Court, thereby incurring avoidable expenditure. If the University had acted in time, the filing of the instant contempt case could have been avoided. The contempt case also stood posted on various dates. The order passed by this Court on 9.6.2014 discloses that the University had not acted as submitted in this Court and that this Court was misled into believing that the petitioner's case is being promptly attended to. In such circumstances, as the petitioner was unnecessarily driven to the necessity of filing a contempt case in this Court and he was made to run from pillar to post to have his representations considered and disposed of, I am of the opinion that notwithstanding the fact that the judgment has now been complied with, the respondent should be held personally liable to pay costs to the petitioner which I quantify and fix at Rs.10,000/-.
I accordingly close this contempt case but with a direction to the respondent to pay to the petitioner as costs, the sum of Rs.10,000/- by way of demand draft within one month from today, failing which the State of Kerala shall recover the same from the respondent's salary and pay it over to the petitioner, on the petitioner moving the Government in that regard.
vpv
Sd/-
P.N.RAVINDRAN JUDGE