Allowed

Manju Manuel v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Apr 2008WP(C)/16055/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenges the rejection of a former lecturer's salary bill by the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education. The court examined objections regarding the course subsidiary subjects and NET qualification. It held that objections raised later in the counter-affidavit but not in the impugned orders cannot sustain, and quashed the challenged orders.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of Exts. P6 and P8; Prerogative writ of mandamus directing the 3rd respondent to pay salary and allowances pending payment for the period 22.10.1996 to 16.11.1999.

Manju Manuel Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2008 / 19TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 16055 of 2006(J) --------------------------

¶4

PETITIONER:

¶5

¶6

MANJU MANUEL(FORMERLY LECTURER IN ELECTRONICS, DEPARTMENT OF COMPUTER SCIENCE, ASSUMPTION COLLEGE, CHANGANASSERY), THAZHATHUKUNNEL, RUBY NAGAR P.O., CHANGANASSERY.

¶7

BY ADV. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY SMT.N.SANTHA SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO

¶8

RESPONDENTS: -------------

¶9

STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶10

DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶11

DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, KOTTAYAM.

¶12

MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM.

¶13

MANAGER, ASSUMPTION COLLEGE, CHANGANASSERY.

¶14

PRINCIPAL, ASSUMPTION COLLEGE, CHANGANASSERY.

¶15

BY ADV. SRI. T.A. SHAJI, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.T.T.MUHAMOOD

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C).No. 16055/2006/J

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶20

EXT. P1:	COPY OF THE LETTER NO.12004/B3/95/H.EDN. DATED 29.9.1995 ADDRESSED AMONG OTHERS TO THE REGISTRAR OF MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY ALONG WITH THE RELEVANT PORTION OF APPENDIX B.
EXT. P2:	COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 22.10.1996 OF THE MANAGER OF THE COLLEGE.
EXT. P3:	COPY OF THE ORDER UO NO.AC.A1/1/AFFN./1828/95-96 DATED 1.10.1999 OF THE UNIVERSITY.
EXT. P4:	COPY OF THE RELIEVING ORDER DATED 18.3.2001.
EXT. P5:	COPY OF THE ORDER NO.AC.B1/1/1321/04 DATED 11.3.2005 OF THE UNIVERSITY.
EXT. P6:	COPY OF THE LETTER NO.G1/6790/05 DATED 22.2.2006 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXT. P7:	COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 9.3.2006 OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT.
EXT. P8:	COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16.3.2006 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXT. P9:	COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 29.4.2006.
EXT. P10:	COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.AC.L/588/ORD/7/2000 DATED 7.6.2004 OF THE REGISTRAR, M.G.UNIVERSITY.
EXT. P11:	COPY OF THE ORDER NO.AC.BII/632/MIS/96 DATED 23.9.1999 OF THE REGISTRAR, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY.
EXT. P12:	COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.1819/BII-1/ACAD/93 DATED 2.12.1996.
EXT. P13:	COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P. 7222/99-1 DATED 10.6.99 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXT. P14:	COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE SELECTION COMMITTEE WHICH MET ON 17.9.1996.

¶21

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

¶22

EXT. R3(A): COPY OF ORDER NO.U.0.NO.AC.A1/1/AFFN/1828/95-96 DT. 21.10.95.

¶23

WP(C).No. 16055/2006/J

¶24

EXT. R3(B): COPY OF G.O. (RT)NO.991/03/H.EDN. DT. 15-7-2003. EXT. R3(C): COPY OF THE GO(RT) NO.1725/94/H.EDN. DT. 16-11-94. EXT. R3(D): COPY OF LR.NO.F1-2002/PS DT. JAN.2003. EXT. R3(E): COPY OF NOTIFICATION NO.F3-1/00(PS) DT. 4.4.2000.

¶25

/TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE

¶26

¶27

S.SIRI JAGAN, J.

¶28

======================= W.P.(C) No.16055 of 2006(J)

¶29

=======================

¶30

Dated this the 8^th day of April, 2008

¶31

JUDGMENT

¶32

The petitioner was formerly a lecturer in Electronics in Assumption College, Changanasserry for the period from 22.10.1996 to 16.11.1999 which appointment was approved

¶33

by the University. Subsequently, she left the College since she was not paid salary and joined some other Institution. She is challenging orders of the Deputy Director of Education whereby petitioner's salary bill for the period from 22.10.1996 to 16.11.1999 has been objected.

¶34

The Government sanctioned additional courses in several colleges for the year 1995-96 as evidenced by Ext.P1. From Ext.P1, it is seen that for Assumption College, Changanasserry the course of B.Sc. Computer Science was sanctioned. In Ext.P1, it has been specifically stated that additional staff according to the approved pattern will also be sanctioned in all these colleges that year for handling the newly sanctioned courses. The course that was started and affiliated to

¶35

W.P.(C) No.16055/2006/J -2-

¶36

the Mahatma Gandhi University by the College was B.Sc. (Computer Science) with Mathematics and Electronics as subsidiary subjects. Later, it was found that by mistake while forwarding the papers for affiliation, the subsidiaries mentioned were Mathematics and Physics. Since the syllabus prescribed and the pattern approved by the University for the course was Mathematics and Electronics as subsidiaries, the College requested the University to correct the mistake. Accordingly, by Ext.P3 order, the Syndicate of the University regularised the course as per the approved syllabus of the University i.e. Mathematics with Electronics instead of Mathematics and Physics in Assumption College, Changanasserry, from the date of starting of the course namely, 1995-96 onwards. By Ext.P5 order, the Mahatma Gandhi University approved the appointment of the petitioner as Lecturer in Electronics. When salary bill for payment of salary to the petitioner was submitted, the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education, Kottayam returned the same noting the following defects:

¶37

"1) Copy of order sanctioning B.Sc. Computer Science Course shall be produced. 2) Copy of rank list of candidates in Electronics

¶38

W.P.(C) No.16055/2006/J -3-

¶39

Dept. shall be produced. 3) Income Tax assessment statement shall be produced."

¶40

By Ext.P7, the bill was resubmitted rectifying those

¶41

defects. Again by Ext.P8, the bill was returned noting the following defects:

¶42

"1) You have retransmitted this bill without rectifying the defects on answering to the points noted as per this office Lr.No.G1/6790/05 dt. 22.2.06.

¶43

In the case of IT, the total income should be shown as the income of the current year. 3) Your letter vide ref. cited contains false information meant to mislead the attention of the undersigned."

¶44

Since the petitioner's representation before the Government Ext.P9 did not evoke any response, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs:

¶45

“i) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records leading to Exts. P6 and P8.

¶46

ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to sanction and disburse salary and allowances pending payment to the petitioner for the period from 22.10.1996 to 16.11.1999 at U.G.C. rates with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date on which they fell due till the date of payment within a time limit to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

¶47

W.P.(C) No.16055/2006/J -4-

¶48

iii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 1^st respondent to dispose of Ext.P9 within a time limit to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

¶49

¶50

iv) grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case including the costs of this writ petition (Civil).”

¶51

A counter affidavit has been filed by respondent No.3

¶52

namely, the Deputy Director of Education, Kottayam in which a totally different reason than what has been stated in Exts.P6 and P8 have been mentioned to the effect that the course was sanctioned with Mathematics and Physics as subsidiaries and not with Mathematics and Electronics and therefore, the petitioner's appointment was not liable to be approved. Another reason is also mentioned to the effect that the petitioner does not possess NET qualification, which is a qualification prescribed by the UGC for Lectureship.

¶53

The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit along with which the petitioner has produced Ext.P10 Mahatma Gandhi University Ordinance regarding workload and staff pattern of Teachers of B.Sc. (Computer Science) in which the course pattern consists of the following subjects namely, English, Mathematics,

¶54

W.P.(C) No.16055/2006/J -5-

¶55

Electronics, Statistics, Commerce and Computer Science. The subject Physics is not mentioned therein. The petitioner would contend that as is clear from Ext.P1 while sanctioning the course the Government never stipulated that the course should be with Mathematics and Physics as subsidiaries but only as B.Sc. in Computer Science and it was purely a mistake committed by the Principal of the College in forwarding proposal for affiliation with Physics as one of the two subsidiaries instead of Electronics which was later on corrected by the University by Ext.P3. The petitioner points out that the Government is unable to produce the order sanctioning the course inspite of specific direction by this Court to that effect. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the Government cannot now take a stand that the course itself was sanctioned only with Physics as one of the subsidiaries instead of Electronics. Regarding the second objection, the petitioner points out that by Ext.P11 order the University itself has stipulated that candidates with NET can be considered for appointment for Lectureship up to 1996-97 academic year and that petitioner was appointed with effect from 22.10.96 during the academic year 1996-97 . In the reply affidavit, the petitioner

¶56

W.P.(C) No.16055/2006/J -6-

¶57

specifically points out that teachers appointed only with a B.Tech are working as Lecturers in M.E.S. College, Marampally, B.P.C. College, Piravom, N.S.S. College, Rajakumari and many other Colleges under the Mahatma Gandhi University are drawing salary in the UGC scale. She further points out that three lecturers in Electronics of M.E.S. College, Marampally with B.Tech. Degree as qualification had approached this Court by OP No.7222/1999 which was disposed of, directing the Mahatma Gandhi University to consider their request for approval of their appointment and take a decision thereon. According to the petitioner, pursuant to Ext.P13 the appointment of those three teachers with B.Tech. in Electronics, as Lecturers in Electronics, was approved and they were paid salary. Petitioner contends that since the respondents have not chosen to file an additional counter affidavit disputing the said averments in the reply affidavit the same should be accepted as correct. On the above grounds, the counsel for the petitioner would contend that the reasons now stated in the affidavit for refusing to pay salary to the petitioner is clearly unsustainable.

¶58

I have considered the rival contentions in detail.

¶59

W.P.(C) No.16055/2006/J -7-

¶60

I am unable to understand how the Government can

¶61

without in seeing the file relating to sanctioning of the course, with any amount of certainty say that the course was sanctioned with Mathematics and Physics as subsidiaries, especially when in Ext.P1 the subsidiary subjects are not mentioned at all. Of course, they would rely on Ext.R3(a) wherein the University has mentioned for Assumption College, Changanasserry, B.Sc. Computer Science with Mathematics and Physics subsidiaries while sanctioning the course. But the petitioner has already explained the same by producing Ext.P3, whereby the very same University had chosen to correct that mistake and changed to the subsidiaries as Mathematics and Electronics. The Government has no case that the Assumption College, Changanasserry has conducted a course with Mathematics and Physics subsidiaries at any time. Several batches of that course have come out after studying Electronics as a subsidiary subject. The averment of the petitioner that the University does not prescribe a syllabus for the B.Sc. Computer Science with Physics as one of the subsidiaries is not disputed by the Government at all. In fact in Ext.P1, the Government themselves sanctioned additional staff

¶62

W.P.(C) No.16055/2006/J -8-

¶63

according to the approved pattern. The University, in Ext.P3, holds that the scheme and syllabus provided by the University was Mathematics with Electronics. When syllabus is prescribed for Electronics as subsidiary, the University could not have conducted an examination for B.Sc. Computer Science with Physics as a subsidiary. If University had not conducted any examination for the subsidiary subject of Physics, then students also could not have written that examination. For all these reasons, I am unable to accept the contention of the Government that the course was sanctioned with Mathematics and Physics as subsidiaries. In any event, now that the University has chosen to affiliate the course with Mathematics and Electronics as subsidiaries from 1995-96 onwards in Assumption College, Changanasserry, it is too late in the day for the Government to contend otherwise. That being so, I do not find any merit whatsoever in that objection raised by the 3^rd respondent, that too only in the counter affidavit and not in the impugned orders at all.

¶64

The same should be the fate of the second objection also. Of course, the 3^rd respondent would rely on Ext.R3(c) to

¶65

W.P.(C) No.16055/2006/J -9-

¶66

show that the exemption from NET qualification was only upto 1990-91. But the 3^rd respondent has no answer to Ext.P11 order issued by the Mahatma Gandhi University, whereby the University itself had stipulated that candidates with NET qualification can be appointed for lectureship upto 1996-97 academic year. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner's averment that in several other colleges lecturers without NET qualification have been appointed and their salary has been paid by the Government is not seen controverted either. In such circumstances, there is no merit in that objection also. In any event, all these contentions were never raised in Exts. P6 and P8. In Ext.P8, the only subsisting objection is that entire amount drawn should be shown as the income of the current year. That only shows the ignorance of the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education about income tax laws. Even if the amount is received as arrears, the assessee has an option to spread over the amount accrued in each assessment year as income of that assessment year even when the amounts accrued in several assessment years are received by an assessee as a lump sum amount in one assessment year. As a result, none of

¶67

W.P.(C) No.16055/2006/J -10-

¶68

the objections raised in Exts. P6 and P8, as also the objections now raised, do not survive. Accordingly, Exts. P6 and P8 are quashed.

¶69

The result is that, the petitioner has become entitled to the salary for the period from 22.10.1996 to 16.11.1999. Accordingly, if the Principal of the College resubmits the bill for payment of salary to the petitioner for the period from 22.10.1996 to 16.11.1999, the 3^rd respondent shall see that the same is paid within one month from the date of receipt of the salary bill. The Principal of the College shall also resubmit the salary bill immediately on production of a copy of this judgment.

¶70

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶71

S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

¶72

Manju Manuel v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manju Manuel v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Varghese C.L. Vs Dr.M.Beena IAS and Others

M. Nahas Vs the District Town Planner & Another

Retired Teachers and Employees Welfare Vs State of Kerala

Mini John Vs the State of Kerala

K.G.Purushothaman Vs Employees Provident Fund Organization

E.K.Joy Vs the Kerala Head Load Workers Welfare