IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 8TH ASHADHA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 32981 OF 2014
PETITIONERS:
1 JASEENA K.U., LECTURER SENIOR SCALE/ASSISTANT PROFESSOR
- IN COMPUTER APPLICATION, MES COLLEGE, MARAMPALLY,
PERUMBAVUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
2 SHEEBA VARGHESE, LECTURER SENIOR SCALE/ASSISTANT
PROFESSOR IN ELECTRONICS MES COLLEGE, MARAMPALLY,
PERUMBAVUR, ERNAKULAM.
3 SAM KOLLANNORE U., LECTURER SENIOR SCALE/ASSISTANT
PROFESSOR IN ELECTRONICS MES COLLEGE, MARAMPALLY,
PERUMBAVUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
DR.K.P.SATHEESAN (SR.)
SRI.S.K.ADHITHYAN
SRI.P.MOHANDAS ERNAKULAM
SRI.MUHAMMED IBRAHIM ABDUL SAMAD
SRI.SABU PULLAN
SRI.K.SUDHINKUMAR
SRI.S.VIBHEESHANAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 033.
2 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 020.
3 MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS,
KOTTAYAM - 686 560, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.
4 THE MANAGER/CORRESPONDENT AND CHAIRMAN
STANDING COMMITTEE ON MES COLLEGES, MUSLIM EDUCATIONAL
SOCIETY (REGISTERED) BANK ROAD, KOZHIKODE - 673 001.
5 THE PRINCIPAL, MES COLLEGE, MARAMPALLY, PERUMBAVUR,
ERNAKULAM - 683 542.
SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH
WP(C) NO. 32981 OF 2014
2
SRI.ASOK M. CHERIAN, SC
SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU
SRI.VARUGHESE M.EASO, SC
SRI.K.M RESMI-SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 29.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 32981 OF 2014
3
JUDGMENT
The petitioners joined the services of the MES College, Marampally - of which the fifth respondent is the Principal - in the years 1996 as far as the first among them is concerned and 1999 with respect to 2 and 3 among them at a time where the qualification for such purpose was only a degree and Bachelor of Technology (B.Tech.). Thereafter, on completion of six years in such post, they were granted placement to Senior Scale through Exts.P6 to P8, but the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education sought certain clarifications from the University through Ext.R2(b). This led to Ext.P15 order being issued, cancelling Exts.P6 to P8 and the petitioners allege that the same is illegal and unlawful.
2. Sri.K.Sudhin Kumar - learned counsel for the petitioners, further explained that Ext.P15 could not have been issued by the University in the manner it has been done because Exts.P6 to P8 were provisionally approved by it, as is evident from Exts.P9 to P11. He argued that, in any event of the matter, the action of the University in having cancelled his clients' placement in the Senior Scale of Lecturer was impermissible because nowhere in the Statutes, Regulations or WP(C) NO. 32981 OF 2014 4 Ordinances applicable to the University was it required for his clients to have acquired M.Tech for the purpose of being placed in the said scale. He argued that since his clients were recruited in the year 1996 and 1999, they were not required to obtain M.Tech degree for such purpose, because Ext.P3 Regulations relating to the Minimum Qualification of Teachers to the University was approved by its Academic Council only on 23.09.1999. He contended that, therefore, the placement of his clients in the Senior Scale would only depend upon the number of years they spent in the post of Lecturer and relied on Ext.P16 Regulations of the UGC of the year 2000 in substantiation. The learned counsel, therefore, prayed that this writ petition be allowed and the reliefs sought for be granted.
3. Smt.Vaheeda Babu - learned standing counsel for respondents 3 and 4, stood with the afore submissions of Sri.K.Sudhin Kumar and argued that the cancellation of the placements given to the petitioners by the University was wrong because nowhere is it provided or stipulated that they should have acquired M.Tech before they were so placed. She pointed that, on the contrary, Ext.P16 - UGC Regulations make it limpid that a Lecturer would be eligible to move into the WP(C) NO. 32981 OF 2014 5 grade of Lecturer (Senior Scale) on completion of the prescribed period of service - which in the case of the petitioners was six years - and that it makes no additional prescription regarding educational qualifications or such other. Smt.Vaheeda Babu also, therefore, prayed that this writ petition be allowed.
4. In response, however, Sri.Surin George Ipe - learned standing counsel for the MG University, submitted that his client had acted bona fide both in issuing Exts.P6 to P8 orders of placement to the petitioners in Senior Scale, as also Ext.P15 cancelling it. He explained that when Exts.P6 to P8 were issued, the University did not know that the educational qualification of M.Tech was a pre-requisite for "promoting" them to the post of Lecturer (Senior Scale), but that they were so informed by the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education thereafter through Ext.R2(b), which necessitated Ext.P15 to be issued by them, cancelling such "promotion". He argued that, therefore, unless the petitioners had acquired M.Tech in the year 2002 - when they were initially granted the placement through Exts.P6 to P8 - they could not have held on to the benefits under it. He thus justified Ext.P15 and prayed that this writ petition be dismissed.
WP(C) NO. 32981 OF 2014 6
5. Smt.K.M.Resmi - learned Senior Government Pleader, submitted that since the petitioners, admittedly, did not have M.Tech qualification in the year 2002, being the year from which Exts.P6 to P8 gave them the placement, they cannot assail Ext.P15, which cancelled the said orders on such ground. She predicated that Ext.P3 order of the University makes it incumbent for any Lecturer to obtain the degree of M.Tech for any further promotion and therefore, that such benefit given to them to the post of Lecturer (Senior Scale) was in error and had to be rectified, which has been done by the University correctly through Ext.P15. She also thus prayed that this writ petition be dismissed.
6. When one examines the afore submissions and materials on record, it is rendered perspecious that the primary question on which the rival parties are in contest is whether the placing of the petitioners in the post of Lecturer (Senior Scale) is a promotion or otherwise. If it is a promotion, then certainly, the stand of the University and that of the official respondents would be without error, because Ext.P3, which was brought into force with effect from 23.09.1999, makes it clear that an incumbent or a Lecturer must obtain the qualification of M.Tech for promotion. WP(C) NO. 32981 OF 2014 7
7. The placement in Lecturer (Senior Scale) is guided by Ext.P16 UGC Regulations of the year 2000. As per clause 2.0.0 thereof, under the title "Career Advancement", the said Regulations provide that a Lecturer would become eligible "to move into the grade of Lecturer (Senior Scale)", provided they have a minimum length of service of six years, which shall be relaxed by one year and two years respectively for those with M.Phil and Ph.D. It is admitted that the petitioners did not have M.Phil or Ph.D and therefore, that they would have been entitled to the said placement only in the years 2002 (in the case of first petitioner) and 2005 (in the case of the ther petitioners) which was, in fact, offered to them through Exts.P6 to P8. They acquired their M.Tech qualification only later and therefore, admittedly, as of today, their placements cannot be inhibited.
8. Thus, the crucial question is whether the placement given to them through Exts.P6 to P8 is in error on the ground that they did not have the qualification at the relevant time.
9. As I have said above, this question will obtain a proper resolution when one examines the manner in which the "placement" into the post of Lecturer (Senior Scale) is mandated under the UGC Regulations.
WP(C) NO. 32981 OF 2014 8
10. As rightly argued by Sri.K.Sudhin Kumar and Smt.Vaheeda Babu, there is no Regulation in force, as far as the University is concerned, stipulating that the grant of Senior Scale to a Lecturer is a promotion. No additional qualification has been prescribed, concededly, for the purpose of such; and Ext.P16 UGC Regulations limpidly provide that a Lecturer will be eligible for placement to the Senior Scale through a procedure of selection, provided he/she has the stipulated number of years of service and satisfies two other criteria as are mentioned in clause 2.2.0 thereof. It is nobody's case that the petitioners had not attained the qualifications as are prescribed under the afore clause, or that they had not completed six years after their appointment, at the time when Exts.P6 to P8 were issued.
11. The only point in controversy is whether they ought to have obtained the qualification of M.Tech and whether the placement was a "promotion".
12. Even one examines Ext.P16 UGC Regulations very closely, it can never be gathered that the placing of a Lecturer into the grade of Lecturer Senior Scale is a promotion. Pertinently, the Regulations do not say so and, on the other hand, it uses the word "move into the grade of Lecturer WP(C) NO. 32981 OF 2014 9 (Senior Scale)". The Regulations do not even say that Lecturer Senior Scale is a post, but defines it to be a "grade" and allows the Lecturer "to move into it" on having the prescribed qualifications and period of service.
13. That said, as I have said above, there are no specific additional qualifications as far as the Lecturer (Senior Scale) is concerned. This is expressly admitted by all the respondents.
14. Obviously, therefore, when the petitioners were recruited in the years 1996 and 1999, when only B.Tech was necessary for the post of Lecturer, their eligibility to move into the grade of Lecturer (Senior Scale) could also be based on that qualification and nothing else. The requirement in Ext.P3, to obtain M.Tech qualification, would apply only in the case of a promotion and not in the case of placement or "movement into Lecturer (Senior Scale)".
15. In the afore perspective, it becomes indubitable that Ext.R2(b) opinion of the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education is without any forensic support and I notice that he has, in fact, used the word "promotion" while referring to the movement of the petitioners to the grade of Lecturer Senior Scale. Obviously, the Deputy Director was under the impression that such movement was a "promotion" and WP(C) NO. 32981 OF 2014 10 therefore, that the requirements in Ext.P3 would come into play, which is to mean that the petitioners ought to have acquired M.Tech by the time they were offered benefits under it. Since this assumption of the Deputy Director is flawed, Ext.P15 order issued by the University - which has its hypostasis on such view, would also be rendered untenable.
16. In the afore circumstances, I allow this writ petition and set aside Ext.P15; however, clarifying that my observations herein are confined to the question relating to the "movement into the grade of Lecturers (Senior Scale)" and not as regards promotions to any other post.
Resultantly, the petitioners will be entitled to all benefits consequent to Exts.P6 to P8; and if they have not been yet granted, the same, it shall be made available to them within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE stu WP(C) NO. 32981 OF 2014 11 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 32981/2014 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1: COPY OF THE ORDER OF APPOINTMENT NO.
AC.BII/3/634/96/ACAD DATED 16/11/2000 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY. EXHIBIT P2: COPY OF THE ORDER OF APPOINTMENT NO.
AC.BII-3/634/96/ACAD DATED 04/01/2001 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY. EXHIBIT P3: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.AC.BII/632/MIS/96 DATED 23/09/2009 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY.
EXHIBIT P4: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE IN M.TECH IN INFORMATION SYSTEMS SECURITY OBTAINED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER FROM INDIRA GANDHI NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY.
EXHIBIT P5: COPY OF THE DEGREE CERTIFICATE OBTAINED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER FROM IGNOU IN JUNE 2011.
EXHIBIT P6: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. MES/AC/E-1953/2012 DATED 16/10/2012 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P7: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. MES/AC/E-1952/2012 DATED 16/10/2012 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P8: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. MES/AC/E-1951/2012 DATED 16/10/2012 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P9: COPY OF THE APPROVAL ORDER NO. UO NO.
1492/BV/2013/ACAD DATED 18/03/2013 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P10: COPY OF THE APPROVAL ORDER NO. UO NO.
1491/BV/2013/ACAD DATED 18/03/2013 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND WP(C) NO. 32981 OF 2014 12 RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P11: COPY OF THE APPROVAL ORDER NO. UO NO.
1490/BV/2013/ACAD DATED 21/03/2013 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P12: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.
D6/3959/2013 DATED 28/01/2014 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION.
EXHIBIT P13: COPY OF THE REPLY NO. AC.BV/1/1097/2014 DATED 17/07/2014 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY.
EXHIBIT P14: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 27/08/2014 IN W.P.(C) NO. 15978/2014 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P15: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.U.O.NO.1196/BV/1/2014/ACAD DATED 05/03/2015 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P16: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY UGC AS NO.F3-1/2000 (PS) DATED MARCH, 2000 EXHIBIT P17: COPY OF THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 02.12.1996 EXHIBIT P18: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.03.2000 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P19: COPY OF THE EXEMPTION ORDER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 29.06.2001.
RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE R2(a) COPY OF THE ORDER NO.AC.BII/632/MIS./96 DATED 23.09.1999 ANNEXURE R2(b) COPY OF THE LETTER NO.D6/3959/2013 DATED 11.11.2014 WP(C) NO. 32981 OF 2014 13 ANNEXURE R2(c) COPY OF THE LETTER NO.AC.B5/1/6712/2014 DATED 24.11.2014 ANNEXURE R3(a) COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING DATED 24.06.2014 OF THE SSCA (APPROVAL & PROMOTION) ANNEXURE R3(b) COPY OF THE LETTER NO.D6/3959/2013 DATED 19.09.2014 OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, ERNAKULAM