Jaseena K.U vs The Director Of Collegiate ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 7886 Ker

               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

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

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

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. 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

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

(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

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

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

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

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