Kerala High Court
Dr Deepa R vs State Of Kerala on 20 August, 2025
Author: Anil K.Narendran
Bench: Anil K.Narendran
W.A.No.1211 of 2025
1 2025:KER:62502
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 29TH SRAVANA, 1947
WA NO. 1211 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 17.12.2024 IN WP(C) NO.38005 OF
2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
DR DEEPA R
AGED 51 YEARS
W/O SHRI A.J.MUHAMMED SHAFEER, ASSISTANT LIBRARIAN
GRADE-II, M.G.UNIVERSITY, KOTTAYAM, KERALA, RESIDING
AT: M.G.UNIVERSITY STAFF QUARTERS, NO.PERIYAR 312,
ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686560
BY ADVS.
SMT.LAKSHMI RAMADAS
SRI.P.RAVINDRAN (SR.)
SHRI.M.R.SABU
SMT.APARNA RAJAN
SRI.SREEDHAR RAVINDRAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HIGHER
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT STATE SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE M.G.UNIVERSITY
KERALA, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS.P.O. KOTTAYAM , THROUGH
ITS REGISTRAR., PIN - 686560
3 THE REGISTRAR
W.A.No.1211 of 2025
2 2025:KER:62502
M.G.UNIVERSITY, KERALA, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS.P.O.
KOTTAYAM ., PIN - 686560
4 THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR-2(ADMINISTRATION)
THE M.G.UNIVERSITY, KERALA, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS.P.O.
KOTTAYAM ., PIN - 686560
5 ADDL. R5. SALAHUDDEEN PUTHU OTAYIL
S/O ALIYATH A.P., AGED 55 YEARS, WORKING AS ASSISTANT
LIBRARIAN GRADE II, SECTION HEAD, ELECTRONIC THESIS
DEPARTMENT (ETD), M. G. UNIVERSITY LIBRARY, P. D.
HILLS, ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM (DISTRICT), AND RESIDING
AT AZEENA MANZIL, NADAKKAL P.O., ERATTUPETTA, KOTTAYAM
DIST. (ADDL. R5 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
11/12/2024 IN I.A.1/2024 IN WP(C) 38005/2024), PIN -
686560)
BY ADVS.
SHRI.REJI MATHEW.M
SHRI.N.SAJU THOMAS
SHRI.MATHEW VARGHESE
SHRI.MATHEWS K. NELLUVELY
SHRI.JOEL REJI MATHEW
SHRI.ANDREW MATHEWS
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. ELVIN PETER, SR. COUNSEL FOR MG UNIVERSITY
SMT.NISHA BOSE, SR.G.P
THIS WRIT APPEAL WAS FINALLY HEARD ON 05.08.2025, THE COURT
ON 20.8.2025 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.No.1211 of 2025
3 2025:KER:62502
JUDGMENT
Muralee Krishna, J.
This writ appeal is filed under Section 5 (i) of the Kerala High
Court Act, 1958, by the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.38005 of 2024,
challenging the judgment dated 17.12.2024 passed by the learned
Single Judge in that writ petition.
2. The appellant was appointed as Library Assistant in the
2nd respondent University on 05.08.1998. She was later promoted
as Reference Assistant with effect from 01.12.2008. She holds
Masters Degree and Ph.D in Library and Information Science. By
Ext.P1 order dated 26.03.2019, the appellant was promoted as
Assistant Librarian Grade II with effect from 19.03.2019. She
joined the post on 26.03.2019.
2.1. According to the appellant, on the date of Ext.P1 order,
the VIth Central Pay Commission scale of pay was made applicable
as the UGC scale of pay. The appellant, by Ext.P2 submission
dated 29.03.2019, requested her induction into the UGC scheme
and also for the grant of 5 non-compounded increments, being a
Ph.D holder in the cadre of Assistant Librarian. Consequent to
Ext.P2 submission, the pay of the appellant was fixed under the
4 2025:KER:62502
UGC scale of Pay Band-3 + Academic Grade Pay of Rs.6,000/- with
5 non-compounded advance increments as per Ext.P3 order dated
04.11.2019 issued from the office of the 3 rd respondent. By Ext.P4
submission dated 12.11.2019, the appellant requested the fixation
of pay in the UGC scale of pay + 5 non-compounded advance
increments in force. But by an order dated 26.06.2020 issued from
the office of the 2nd respondent, Ext.P3 order dated 04.11.2019
was cancelled and it was ordered that the appellant would be
brought over to VII th CPC scale of pay (Level-10 of the Pay Matrix),
presumably based on the recommendations of the UGC accepted
by the Government of Kerala in the year 2020 with retrospective
effect from 01.01.2016. This has resulted in a substantial
reduction in the pay of the appellant, lower than the pay the
appellant was drawing on the date of promotion to the lower post,
and moreover, this was not the scale of pay/UGC scheme for which
the appellant had opted in terms of Ext.P2. Therefore, the
appellant submitted Ext.P5 representation dated 14.07.2020 inter
alia stating that Ext.P4 will have a cascading effect upon the
monthly pay of the appellant and her future career, and therefore,
she be exempted from the UGC scale of pay, which was ordered
5 2025:KER:62502
to be granted in Ext.P3, but not granted. Ext.P5 representation
was not responded and hence the appellant continued to draw the
scale of pay of a Reference Assistant. Subsequently, the appellant
received Ext.P6 communication dated 17.09.2021 issued on
behalf of the 3rd respondent, wherein it was stated that the
appellant's pay as Assistant Librarian would be fixed in the State
scale of pay. Though Ext.P6 was directed to be given effect only
from 02.09.2021, the same also did not materialise. The appellant
then received Ext.P7 letter dated 19.11.2021 issued on behalf of
the 3rd respondent modifying Ext.P6 and directing the grant of the
State scale of pay with effect from 26.03.2019.
2.2. The appellant submitted Ext.P8 representation dated
20.11.2021 inter alia praying to declare the probation with effect
from 26.09.2019. She submitted Ext.P9 request dated 20.11.2021
once again seeking fixation of her pay in the post of Assistant
Librarian, as she continued to draw the scale of pay attached to
the post of Reference Assistant. In the meanwhile, a vacancy of
Assistant Librarian Grade-I in the State scale of pay arose on
01.05.2021. The appellant, therefore, submitted Ext.P10 request
dated 31.01.2022 to promote her as Assistant Librarian Grade-I
6 2025:KER:62502
with effect from 01.05.2021. Since no action was taken on
Ext.P10, the appellant submitted Ext.P11 representation dated
13.06.2022 with the same request.
2.3. While so, three of the appellant's juniors were
promoted as Assistant Librarian Grade-I. The last among them,
Sri.Biju Philip submitted a representation seeking to protect his
service seniority, and it has been directed to study the
representation and submit a report. The appellant was called for
a hearing on 27.08.2022 as per the Ext.P12 communication dated
26.08.2022, and by Ext.P13 order dated 19.11.2022, the
appellant was informed that it has been decided to accept the
report and revert the appellant to the UGC scale from 26.03.2019.
Ext.P13 was followed by Ext.P14 order dated 13.12.2022 issued
on behalf of the 3rd respondent.
2.4. Challenging Exts.P13 and P14, the appellant filed
W.P.(C)No.42566 of 2022 before this Court. The said writ petition
was allowed by Ext.P15 judgment dated 04.07.2023, directing the
competent authority of the University to hear the appellant and
the 5th respondent therein, and take a decision on the request of
the appellant for rectification of the alleged anomaly caused to her
7 2025:KER:62502
on account of the modification of Exts.P4 to P6 produced in that
writ petition; but without acceding to the request of the appellant
for a switchover to the UGC scheme. It was further directed in that
judgment that the aforesaid direction shall be complied by the
University, resulting in appropriate proceedings, as expeditiously
as possible, but not later than one month from the date of receipt
of a copy of that judgment. It was further directed in that
judgment that all actions, if any, taken by the University pursuant
to Exts.P16 and P17 therein will be subject to the aforesaid
decision to be taken; and if, through the exercise as above
ordered, the appellant is found eligible to any benefit, same shall
be granted to her, notwithstanding the implementation of the said
orders. It was clarified in that judgment that the learned Single
Judge did not speak affirmatively on any of the claims of the
appellant and that they will be considered appositely by the
University as per the aforementioned directions.
2.5. Consequent to the direction in Ext.P15 judgment, the
appellant was informed by Ext.P16 memo dated 05.09.2023
stating that one Dr.Shajeela Beevi. S has been authorised to hear
the parties. This memo was modified with Ext.P17 memo dated
8 2025:KER:62502
15.09.2023, whereby Dr.Biju Pushpan was authorised to conduct
a hearing. The appellant then filed Contempt Petition (Civil)
No.2131 of 2023 before this Court, contending that the orders
issued by the respondents are not consistent with Ext.P15
judgment. Consequent to the filing of the said contempt case, the
3rd respondent issued another order, resulting in the filing of
another contempt case by the appellant as Con.Case(C)No.461 of
2024. The said contempt cases were disposed of by this Court by
Exts.P18 judgment dated 12.10.2023 and Ext.P19 judgment
dated 21.02.2024, respectively. In terms of the directions in
Ext.P19 judgment, the respondents conducted a hearing, and the
appellant was served with Ext.P22 enquiry report dated
08.02.2024 submitted by the Sub-Committee. Subsequently, the
appellant was served with Ext.P23 order dated 23.03.2024 stating
that the appellant, who is included in the UGC scheme, is not
entitled to promotion under the State scheme. The appellant,
therefore, filed Ext.P24 appeal before the Chancellor of the
University on 18.04.2024.
2.6. The appellant states that immediately after Ext.P15
judgment dated 04.07.2023 was uploaded in the website, the
9 2025:KER:62502
appellant noticed that Ext.P15 originally uploaded was found
substituted by another copy of the judgment in which the sentence
in the operative portion of the judgment "but without acceding to
her request for a switchover to the UGC scheme" was substituted
with "but without acceding to her request for coming back to the
State scheme". When the matter was brought to the notice of this
Court, Ext.P26 the subsequently uploaded judgment was again
replaced with Ext.P15 judgment. From various records such as
Ext.P27 true copy of the file note relating to the issue and Ext.P28
communication dated 17.07.2024 sent by the Additional Chief
Secretary to the Governor would indicate that the entire action on
the part of the respondents was in the light of Ext.P26 judgment
and not Ext.P15 judgment which governs the situation. Therefore,
the appellant filed I.A. No.1 of 2024 for a clarification as to which
one of the judgments should prevail over the other. That
interlocutory application filed in Con.Case(C)No. 461 of 2024 was
disposed of by an order dated 09.10.2024, noticing the statement
of the counsel for the University that the University appears to
have issued the order based on the original judgment, i.e.,
Ext.P15.
10 2025:KER:62502
2.7. Contending that the stand of the respondents that once
opted to UGC scheme one cannot go back to the State scheme is
without substance, the appellant approached this Court with the
instant writ petition viz., W.P.(C)No.38005 of 2024 filed under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari
to quash Ext.P23 order dated 23.03.2024 and to issue a writ of
mandamus commanding the respondents to fix the appellant's pay
in the State scale of pay as Assistant Librarian with effect from
19.03.2019, as if Ext.P23 had not been issued at all, with
consequential benefits emanating therefrom. In the writ petition,
the appellant further contended that Exts.P30 and P31 orders
dated 21.06.2024 and 20.07.2024, respectively, issued by the
University of Calicut would show that one can go back to the State
scheme from the UGC scheme. The appellant contended that, in
fact, she was never switched over to the UGC Scheme, though an
option was given to her. The option given by the appellant was
withdrawn by her even before it was acted upon.
2.8. By producing Ext.P32 order dated 06.06.2019 issued by
the 1st respondent, the appellant contended that the appointments
to the UGC scale of pay of Assistant Librarian cannot be made by
11 2025:KER:62502
promotion from the State scheme, but only by direct recruitment.
Despite the clear direction that persons like the appellant cannot
be promoted to the UGC scale, the respondents are contending
that the appellant cannot be reverted to the State scheme.
3. The additional 5th respondent filed a counter affidavit
dated 03.12.2024 in the writ petition opposing the reliefs sought
therein and producing therewith Ext. R5(a) document.
4. To that counter affidavit, the appellant submitted a
reply affidavit dated 10.12.2024, producing therewith Exts.P33 to
P36 documents.
5. After considering the materials on record and the
submissions made at the Bar, the learned Single Judge dismissed
the writ petition by the judgment dated 17.12.2024, holding that
the appellant is not entitled to the reliefs sought for. Hence, the
appellant is now before this Court with this writ appeal.
6. The writ appeal was filed by the appellant with a delay
of 103 days. By the order dated 09.06.2025 in C.M.Application
No.1 of 2025, the delay was condoned by this Court. On
20.06.2025, when this writ appeal came up for admission, the
learned Senior Government Pleader took notice for the 1 st
12 2025:KER:62502
respondent. The learned Standing Counsel for respondents 2 to 4
and the learned counsel for the additional 5th respondent entered
appearance.
7. On 29.07.2025, having heard the preliminary
submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant
and also the learned Standing Counsel for the University, we
directed the registry to incorporate the Judges' papers in
W.P.(C)No.42566 of 2022 and Con.Case(C)No.461 of 2024 in the
writ appeal. Pursuant to the said direction, the Judges' papers in
W.P.(C)No.42566 of 2022 and Con.Case(C)No.461 of 2024 were
incorporated with the Judges' papers of this writ appeal by the
Registry.
8. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant/writ
petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 2 to 4,
the learned Senior Government Pleader and also the learned
counsel for the additional 5 th respondent.
9. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant would
submit that Ext.P15 is the judgment rendered by the learned
Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.42566 of 2022 filed by the appellant
seeking necessary reliefs. Though a copy of the judgment was
13 2025:KER:62502
immediately seen uploaded on the website of this Court, a few
hours later, it was substituted with Ext.P26 judgment, wherein a
sentence in the operative portion was seen changed. When this
fact was brought to the notice of this Court, Ext.P26 judgment was
substituted with the original judgment. By virtue of Ext.P15
judgment, this Court directed the respondents to hear the
appellant and the additional 5th respondent and to make a decision
on the request of the appellant, 'without acceding to her request
for a switchover to the UGC scheme'. But Ext.P23 order passed
by the 3rd respondent is in consonance with Ext.P26, which was
disowned by all the parties. Therefore, Ext.P23 has no legs to
stand. The learned Senior Counsel vehemently submitted that
though the respondents contended that there is no provision to
return back, after switching over to the UGC scheme from the
State scheme, there is no statute that prevents the same.
Moreover, Exts.P30 and P31 orders issued by the University of
Calicut in a similar situation show that such a switching back to
the State scheme is permissible. The learned Senior Counsel
further pointed out that the Ext.P3 order passed consequent to
the request of the appellant to switchover to the UGC scheme from
14 2025:KER:62502
the State Scheme was cancelled by the 2nd respondent before
implementation of the same by the order dated 26.06.2020.
Therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.
10. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for
respondents 2 to 4 submitted that the respondents are also
relying on Ext.P15 judgment and not Ext.P26 judgment. Ext.P23
order was passed by the 3rd respondent, complying with the
directions in Ext.P15 judgment. The learned Standing Counsel
fairly conceded that since the stand taken in Ext.P23 was not in
consonance with the direction in Ext.P15 judgment, the matter
has to be decided afresh by the 3 rd respondent. However, the
learned counsel for the additional 5th respondent supported the
judgment of the learned Single Judge and argued that once a
switchover was granted to the UGC scheme, it is not possible to
revert back to the State scheme.
11. The appellant, while working as Assistant Librarian
Grade-II, submitted Ext.P2 submission dated 29.03.2019 for her
induction to the UGC scheme from the State Scheme, since the
pay matrix was beneficial by the implementation of VIth Central
Pay Commission in the UGC scale of pay. Though the appellant's
15 2025:KER:62502
pay was fixed by Ext.P3 order dated 04.11.2019 issued from the
office of the 3rd respondent in par with the UGC scale of pay, it was
not implemented. When Ext.P4 submission dated 12.11.2019
made by the appellant was pending for fixation of pay in the UGC
scale with 5 non-compounded advance increments for additional
qualification of Ph.D, the 2nd respondent cancelled Ext.P3 order on
26.06.2020 by the order bearing No.2859/ADA5/2020/M.G.U. The
subsequent developments led to the filing of W.P.(C) No.42566 of
2022 by the appellant, which led to the passing of Ext.P15
judgment dated 04.07.2023. Though the appellant has made
certain averments in her pleadings, to the effect that Ext.P15
judgment was replaced with Ext.P26 in the website of this Court
and it was again resubstituted with Ext.P15, which cannot be said
as futile in view of Ext.P26 judgment produced along with the writ
petition, now all the parties are sticking on the stand that the
original judgment is Ext.P15 and none of them are relying on
Ext.P26. In view of the said stand taken by the parties to the
appeal, we are not entering into the aspects of substitution of
Ext.P15 with Ext.P26, etc., in this judgment, as it is unwarranted
for the decision of this appeal.
16 2025:KER:62502
12. The operative portion of Ext.P15 judgment reads thus:
"In the afore circumstances, I allow this writ petition to the
limited extent of directing the competent Authority of the
University to hear the petitioner and the 5 th respondent, and
take a decision on her request for rectification of the alleged
anomaly caused to her on account of the modification of
Ext.P4 to Ext.P6; but without acceding to her request for a
switchover to the UGC Scheme. This shall be done by the
MG University, resulting in appropriate proceedings, as
expeditiously as is possible but not later than one month
from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Needless to say, all action, if any, taken by the University
pursuant to Exts.P16 and P17 will be subject to the afore
decision to be taken; and if, through the exercise as above
ordered, she is found eligible to any benefit, same shall be
granted to her, notwithstanding the implementation of the
said orders.
I further clarify that I have not spoken affirmatively on any
of the claims of the petitioner and that they will be
considered appositely by the University as per the afore
directions". (Underline supplied)
13. From Ext.P23 order impugned in the writ petition
passed by the 3rd respondent, we notice that though the
respondents are saying that they are relying on Ext.P15 judgment,
Ext.P23 order was passed as if in the judgment it was held that a
17 2025:KER:62502
switch back from the UGC scheme to the State scheme was not
permitted. Therefore, it is clear that Ext.P23 order was passed not
in consonance with the direction in Ext.P15 judgment, wherein it
is clearly held that "but without acceding to her request for a
switchover to the UGC scheme". It is pertinent to note at this
juncture that during the course of arguments, the learned counsel
for the respondents 2 to 4 could not point out any provision or
Regulation that prevents reverting back from the UGC scheme to
the State scheme, once the option is exercised to switch over to
the UGC Scheme from the State scheme. It is also pertinent to
note that as per the contention of the appellant, before taking into
effect of Ext.P3 order permitting her to switch over to the UGC
scheme from the State scheme, the same was cancelled by the
2nd respondent as per the order dated 26.06.2020, the passing of
which is not disputed by the respondents. Similarly, Exts. P30 and
P31 orders passed by the University of Calicut in a similar situation
permitted a revert back to the State scheme from the UGC
scheme.
14. The upshot of the above discussion is that the learned
Single Judge failed to consider these aspects in their proper
18 2025:KER:62502
perspective, and hence the impugned judgment is liable to be set
aside, with a direction to the 3rd respondent to consider the issue
afresh.
In the result, the writ appeal is allowed by setting aside the
judgment dated 17.12.2024 in W.P.(C)No.38005 of 2024 passed
by the learned Single Judge. Consequently, the writ petition is
disposed of by setting aside Ext.P23 order dated 23.03.2024
passed by the 3rd respondent and directing the 3rd respondent to
hear the appellant and the additional 5th respondent afresh and
take an appropriate decision in consonance with the direction in
Ext.P15 judgment, bearing in mind the observations made above.
The entire exercise as directed shall be completed, as
expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
sks MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
