Kerala High Court
Mahatma Gandhi University vs V.R. Remya on 13 June, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 23RD JYAISHTA, 1945
WA NO. 537 OF 2023
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.01.2018 IN WP(C) 33878/2016 AND
ORDER DATED 15.7.2022 IN RP. 887/2018 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 1 AND 3 IN WP(C):
1 MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY ,
KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, PRIYADARSHINI
HILLS P.O., KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686560
2 THE SYNDICATE OF THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, THE VICE CHANCELLOR,
MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS
,KOTTAYAM-686 560., PIN - 686560
BY ADV SURIN GEORGE IPE
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENTS 2 AND 4 IN
W.P(C):
1 V.R. REMYA,
AGED 35 YEARS
W/O.P.M. MANOJ KUMAR, "SREEPADAM", THOTTINUVADAKKU,
CHAVARA, WORKING AS LECTURER IN ELECTRONICS BRANCH,
SCHOOL OF TECHNOLOGY AND APPLIED SCIENCES, MAHATMA GANDHI
UNIVERSITY REGIONAL CENTRE, EDAPPALLY, ERNAKULAM., PIN -
691583
2 SOORAJ N.S.,
S/O. SURENDRAN, CHERTHALA SOUTH, ALAPPUZHA (DIST),
WORKING AS LECTURER IN ELECTRONICS BRANCH, SCHOOL OF
TECHNOLOGY AND APPLIED SCIENCES, MAHATMA GANDHI
UNIVERSITY REGIONAL CENTRE, EDAPPALLY., PIN - 688552
3 DIVYA. S.,
W/O. ANUP. G, VENDAR PO, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT,
WORKING AS LECTURER IN COMPUTER SCIENCE BRANCH, SCHOOL OF
TECHNOLOGY AND APPLIED SCIENCES, MAHATMA GANDHI
UNIVERSITY REGIONAL CENTRE, EDAPPALLY., PIN - 691507
W.A. No.537 of 2023 2
4 SUMI MARY ABRAHAM,
W/O.LIO PAUL, NEAR MA COLLEGE JUNCTION KOTHAMANGALAM,
ERNAKULAM, WORKING AS LECTURER ELECTRONICS BRANCH, SCHOOL
OF TECHNOLOGY AND APPLIED SCIENCES, MAHATMA GANDHI
UNIVERSITY REGIONAL CENTRE, EDAPPALLY., PIN - 686666
5 DIRECTOR,
SCHOOL OF TECHNOLOGY AND APPLIED SCIENCES, MAHATMA GANDHI
UNIVERSITY REGIONAL CENTRE, EDAPPALLY, HAVING OFFICE AT
PULLARIKUNNU, MALLOOSSERRY PO, KOTTAYAM-686 560., PIN -
686041
6 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF
HIGHER EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695
001, PIN - 686560
BY ADVS.
P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM)
K.SUDHINKUMAR
SABU PULLAN
GOKUL D. SUDHAKARAN
R.BHASKARA KRISHNAN
K.P.SATHEESAN (SR.)
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.06.2023, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A. No.537 of 2023 3
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR,
&
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., JJ
............................................................
W.A. No.537 of 2023
.............................................................
Dated this the 13th day of June, 2023
JUDGMENT
Mohammed Nias C.P., J.
The Mahatma Gandhi University and its Syndicate are the appellants herein
challenging the judgment in W.P(C) No.33878/2016 dated 22-01-2018 and the
order dated 15-07-2022 in Review Petition No.887/2018.
2. The writ petition was filed by respondents 1 to 4 herein, who were
Lecturers on contract in the School of Technology and Applied Sciences,
Edappally, a self-financing institution directly run by the University, which stood
transferred to a society named Centre for Professional and Advanced Studies
(CPAS) formed pursuant to the Government Order dated 06-04-2017 with effect
from the academic year 2017-18. The writ petitioners sought for regularising
their service and to grant them minimum regular wage scale with effect from the
date on which they were engaged as Lecturers.
3. The learned Single Judge, who heard the writ petition, allowed the same
by judgment dated 22-01-2018 holding that the petitioners were only seeking the
benefits as has been granted by this Court to the similarly situated teachers by the
judgment dated 27-05-2009 in W.P(C) No.1499/2009. The said judgment was
affirmed in the writ appeal and the Special Leave Petition filed against the same
was also dismissed. Though the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant
University argued before the learned Single Judge that the provisions of the
special rule issued by the University were not taken note of while deciding W.P(C)
No.1499/2009, the learned Single Judge held that the same cannot be a
justification for the refusal of a scale of pay to the petitioners since the judgments
in W.P(C) No.19795/2009 (Ext.P5) and W.A.No.828/2013 (Ext.P6) concluded the
issue. In that view of the matter, the learned Single Judge found that the writ
petitioners were eligible for the AICTE scale of pay, holding that the petitioners
were entitled to the benefit of the findings of the judgment in W.P.(C)
No.1499/2009, subject to verification of the qualification and the eligibility of the
petitioners, and allowed the writ petition.
4. The appellants thereafter filed R.P.No.887/2018 before the learned Single
Judge contending that the writ petitioners were appointed only on a contract
basis without any selection process, while the petitioners in W.P(C) No.1499/2009
were appointed after a due selection process and since they are not similarly
placed, they cannot be treated as equals. The review was resisted by the writ
petitioners pointing out that they and the petitioners in W.P(C) No.1499/2009
were identically situated and there was no contention on the part of the
University before the learned Single Judge while rendering the judgment under
appeal. Again, it was pointed out relying on the judgment of this Court in
W.A.No.828/2013 (Ext.R1(a)) that the persons appointed along with the writ
petitioners were granted the same benefits and even at that point of time, the
University had not raised the issue of those persons not being similarly placed as
in the case of the petitioners in W.P(C) No.1499/2009. It was also pointed out by
the writ petitioners that in respect of identically situated persons like the
petitioners who were appointed along with them, denial of the benefits to them
alone is untenable. The learned Single Judge again considered the contentions of
the appellant and held that the case of the petitioners was squarely covered by
the judgment in W.P(C) No.1499/2009 and also that the contention which is
sought to be raised in the review was being raised for the first time. Finding that
no grounds were made out for a review, the petition was rejected.
5. Before us, the learned counsel for the appellants reiterated the same
contentions urged in the review petition. He also cited the judgment of the
Honourable Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1702/2022 and also the judgment
reported in Muthukumar v. Chairman and Managing Director Tangedco [2022 (1)
KLT OnLine 1180 (SC)] and argued that there cannot be negative equality on the
basis of an earlier erroneous stand of the appellant and persons who are not
similar cannot be treated as equals. It is further argued that only when the
certificates were verified for ascertaining the eligibility this was found out and
that is the reason why it was not raised earlier.
6. Having heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and perusing the
records, we are not in a position to accept the arguments on the side of the
appellants for two reasons. First, the contention that the writ petitioners are not
similarly situated as the petitioners in W.P(C) No.1499/2009 is factually wrong. As
pointed out by the writ petitioners, the persons who were appointed along with
the writ petitioners were granted benefits and the same is evidenced by Ext.R1(a)
judgment noted above. In the face of the said judgment, the contention of the
appellants that the present writ petitioners are not similarly placed cannot be
countenanced at all.
7. It is also not in dispute that the decision of the Division Bench of this
Court was unsuccessfully challenged and the Special Leave Petition was
dismissed. The fact that there were others similarly placed as the beneficiaries of
the Division Bench judgment of this Court and who stood to get similar benefits
was also known to the petitioners herein at the time of moving the said SLP.
Therefore, accepting the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants
would mean going against the Division Bench judgment of this Court, which was
not interfered with in the Special Leave Petition. Further, we note, as held by the
Supreme Court in the judgment reported in Sadasivan Nair G. (Dr.) v. Cochin
University of Science and Technology represented by its Registrar and others [2021
(6) KHC 727], that a differential treatment among the persons similarly situated
was not permissible. Admittedly, the persons exactly similar to that of the writ
petitioners were granted benefits and in that view of the matter, to deprive the
writ petitioners of an equal treatment on the basis of the plea now put forth by the
University is untenable. There cannot be any quarrel with the proposition laid
down by the Supreme Court in the judgment in Muthukumar v. Chairman and
Managing Director Tangedco [2022 (1) KLT OnLine 1180 (SC)]. On the facts of this
case, the said judgment cannot have any application for the reasons mentioned
above.
The writ appeal lacks merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.,
JUDGE
okb/
