Kerala High Court
Dr.K.P.Santhosh vs The Kannur University on 6 July, 2021
WP(C) NO. 20654 OF 2020
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 15TH ASHADHA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 20654 OF 2020
PETITIONER:
DR.K.P.SANTHOSH
AGED 60 YEARS
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR AND HEAD (RETD),
DEPARTMENT OF PHYSICS, KANNUR UNIVERSITY,
KANNUR-670002, RESIDING AT CHITHSUKHEE, THAMBURAN ROAD,
NADUVATTOM, NORTH BEYPORE P.O., KOZHIKODE.
BY ADV P.C.SASIDHARAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE KANNUR UNIVERSITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR,
CIVIL STATION.P.O,
KANNUR -670002.
2 THE VICE CHANCELLOR
KANNUR UNIVERSITY,
CIVIL STATION.P.O,
KANNUR -670002.
BY ADV SRI.M.SASINDRAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 20654 OF 2020
2
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P6 order of the University
rejecting the request of the petitioner for consideration of his claim for
promotion as Professor on the ground that he is no longer in active service of the
University/College.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing
counsel appearing for the University.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner
was appointed as Reader in the 1 st respondent University on 01.10.2009. The post
of Reader was later re-designated as Associate Professor. It is submitted that
prior to his appointment in the University, the petitioner had served as Associate
Professor in the Payyannur College till 30.09.2009. It is submitted that the
petitioner is entitled and eligible for promotion and placement as Professor
under the Career Advancement Scheme provided for by the UGC Regulations
which were in force. It is submitted that seeking placement as Professor under
the Career Advancement Scheme with effect from 01.10.2009, the petitioner had
submitted Ext.P2 request before the University. By Ext.P3, the University had
WP(C) NO. 20654 OF 2020
required the petitioner to furnish clarifications with regard to the delay which
had occurred in submitting the application for promotion. By Ext.P4, the
petitioner had submitted his reply stating that the petitioner had not been
granted pay protection, taking note of the earlier pay drawn by him in the
Payyannur College and the request for pay protection had been allowed only on
16.04.2018. It is submitted that thereafter, he had submitted the request for
promotion as Professor in terms of the UGC Scheme on 30.12.2019 and that the
delay was not deliberate or intentional. Ext.P5 request was also made by the
petitioner before the Vice Chancellor seeking consideration of his claim for
promotion. However, by Ext.P6, the petitioner was informed that Clause 6.3.9 of
the UGC Regulations 2010 provides that the incumbent teacher must be on the
roll and active service of the University/College on the date of consideration by
the Selection Committee for promotion. It was therefore informed that since the
petitioner had already retired on 31.05.2020, the request made by the petitioner
could not be considered.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's
eligibility for placement as Professor under the Career Advancement Scheme is
not disputed. It is therefore contended that in view of the fact that the petitioner
had submitted the application as early as on 2019, the respondents ought to have
WP(C) NO. 20654 OF 2020
convened a Selection Committee and considered the API score of the petitioner
and considered his claim for promotion with effect from the date of his
entitlement, that is, 01.10.2009. It is further contended by the learned counsel for
the petitioner that in identical cases, the University had granted promotions to
retired officers as well and Ext.P9 order is produced in evidence thereof. It is
submitted that in the case of the officer referred to in Ext.P9 also, the Career
Advancement Scheme promotion was granted after 10 years of the entitlement.
5. A counter affidavit has been placed on record by the 1 st respondent. It is
contended that the facts stated with regard to the date of joining of the
petitioner and the earlier service are not disputed. It is stated that the order
regarding protection to pay in the revised scale of pay was issued in favour of the
petitioner on 16.04.2018. However, even thereafter, it is only after nearly 20
months that the petitioner had made the application for promotion under the
Career Advancement Scheme, that is, on 30.12.2019. It is stated that there is 20
months delay in making the application and the petitioner's involvement in
academic duties in research and project work would not justify the said delay. It
is submitted that on receipt of application from the petitioner, a letter was sent
to the Chancellor of the University to send his nominee for constituting the
Selection Committee. However, the nominee was not sent by the Chancellor
WP(C) NO. 20654 OF 2020
presumably due to the situation prevalent in the State due to the Covid-19
pandemic. In the meanwhile, the petitioner retired from service on 31.05.2020. It
is submitted that going by the specific provisions of the UGC Regulations,
specifically Clause 6.3.9 thereof, the teacher should be on the roll and in active
service of the University as on the date of consideration by the Selection
Committee. It is submitted that since no Selection Committee could be
constituted before the petitioner's date of retirement, the petitioner's claim for
placement under the Career Advancement Scheme could not be considered by
the University.
6. A reply affidavit has also been placed on record by the petitioner producing
the application submitted by Dr.Babu Anto P. as well as the order dated
02.06.2020 passed in favour of the said officer. The learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that in the said case also, the Career Advancement Scheme
promotion was granted 10 years after the date of entitlement and after the date
of retirement of the said officer.
7. I have considered the contentions advanced on either side. It is not in
dispute before me that the petitioner is eligible to be considered for promotion
under the Career Advancement Scheme as Professor with effect from 01.10.2009.
WP(C) NO. 20654 OF 2020
The entitlement of the petitioner is not disputed. The contention raised is that
pursuant to the application made by the petitioner on 30.12.2019, the University
had taken all possible steps for convening the Selection Committee. But the
Selection Committee could not be convened before the date of superannuation of
the petitioner. It is therefore contended that in view of Clause 6.3.9 of the UGC
Regulations, the University is disabled from considering the claim of the
petitioner for promotion on a date subsequent to the date of his superannuation.
The learned standing counsel for the University would submit that in the case of
the officer covered by Ext.P9 order, the Selection Committee had actually met on
a date prior to the date of his retirement even though the order was passed only
after his retirement.
8. I notice that in the case of Ext.P9 order also, the Career Advancement
Scheme promotion has been given retrospectively with effect from 01.11.2010.
The application submitted by the incumbent is produced as Ext.P8 which is dated
22.11.2019. It appears that a Selection Committee had been convened on
26.03.2020 and the officer was granted promotion as Professor under the Career
Advancement Scheme taking note of the very same UGC Regulations. In the
instant case also, the application of the petitioner is dated 30.12.2019. The
respondents did not deny the claim of the petitioner for anti-dated promotion
WP(C) NO. 20654 OF 2020
under the Career Advancement Scheme. They actually took steps to see that the
Selection Committee was duly constituted. However, apparently due to the
intervening pandemic, the Selection Committee could not be convened before
the petitioner's retirement from service.
9. In such a factual situation, I am of the opinion that the contention raised
that the petitioner's claim for promotion under the Career Advancement Scheme
cannot be considered in view of the fact that he retired from service on
31.05.2020 cannot be countenanced. This is more so in view of the fact that the
entitlement is not in dispute and the fact that the petitioner had, as a matter of
fact, approached the respondents seeking such promotion before his retirement,
that is, on 30.12.2019.
10. In the result, I am of the opinion that the rejection of the request made by
the petitioner for convening of a Selection Committee and for consideration of
his claim for promotion under Career Advancement Scheme, by Ext.P6, is
completely untenable. Ext.P6 order is therefore set aside. There will be a
direction to the respondents to take appropriate steps to convene the Selection
Committee and to consider the claim of the petitioner for promotion as Professor
under the Career Advancement Scheme with effect from 01.10.2009. Necessary
WP(C) NO. 20654 OF 2020
shall be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy
of this judgment.
This writ petition is ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
ANU SIVARAMAN
JUDGE
NP
WP(C) NO. 20654 OF 2020
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20654/2020
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE BIO-DATA OF THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
30/12/2019
EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 26/2/2020.
EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 29/02/2020.
EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ADDRESSED TO THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 15/06/2020.
EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
25/08/2020
EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE GOVERNMENT
DATED 6/12/2017 CLARIFYING THE POSITION.
RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.ACAD/ACAD
B1/26133/2019 DATED 18.05.2020.
