Dismissed

Dr.R.Asaletha v. Cochin University of Science and Technology and Others

Kerala HC7 Aug 2014WA/166/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ appeal filed by a senior lecturer challenging her delayed appointment as a full-time faculty member. Upholding the Single Judge's finding, the Court held there were no sufficient periods for a full-time lecturer in 2001, denying backdated benefits.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner entitled to appointment with effect from 12.01.2004 not from 2001; back benefits denied.

Dr.R.Asaletha Vs Cochin University of Science… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE AG.CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ASHOK BHUSHAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST 2014/16TH SRAVANA, 1936

¶5

WA.No. 166 of 2012 IN WP(C).36335/2010

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 36335/2010 DATED 13-10-2011

¶7

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶8

--------------------------DR.R.ASALETHA W/O.GIRISH, AGED 42 YEARS SENIOR LECTURER IN CHEMISTRY COCHIN UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, KUTTANAD ALAPPUZHA.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.N.DHARMADAN (SR.) SMT.D.P.RENU

¶10

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶11

COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (CUSAT), REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, P.O.KOCHI UNIVERSITY COCHIN-682022.

¶12

THE VICE CHANCELLOR, COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (CUSAT) P.O.KOCHI UNIVERSITY, COCHIN-682022.

¶13

THE SYNDICATE OF CUSAT, COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY(CUSAT) P.K.KOCHI UNIVERSITY, COCHIN-682022.

¶14

R1-R3 BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI, SC, COCHIN UNIVERSITY

¶15

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-08-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

ASHOK BHUSHAN, Ag.CJ & A.M.SHAFFIQUE,J.

¶17

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.A. No.166 of 2012

¶18

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 7th day of August, 2014

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

Shaffique,J

¶21

This appeal is filed by the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No.36335 of 2010 against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 13.10.2011.

¶22

The brief facts involved in the writ petition would disclose that writ petitioner was ranked No.5 to the post of lecturer in Chemistry as notified by the 1^st respondent University. She is a candidate from Hindu-Ezhava (OBC) community. Ext.P2 is the said ranked list. She was not given appointment despite her being eligible to the appointment and availability of the vacancy. Hence she filed OP No.2488/03 and by judgment dated 05.03.2003 learned Single Judge of this Court passed the following order:-

¶23

“..4. The University shall appoint the petitioner as Lecturer in Chemistry. In case there are not sufficient periods to engage a full time Lecturer the petitioner shall be engaged on part time

¶24

W.A. No.166 of 2012

¶25

¶26

basis. Suppose there are not sufficient periods, even for engaging a teacher on part time basis or in other words there are only a few hours of teaching available which normally could be handled by a Guest Lecturer, then the petitioner shall be appointed to take classes as Guest Lecturer. In other words, if there are not sixteen periods justifying the appointment of a full time lecturer, the petitioner can be engaged as a part time teacher. If there are not regular periods available on all days, though below 18, justifying the engagement of a part time teacher, the petitioner shall be engaged as Guest Lecturer as and when vacancies are available and the pro rata salary shall be released to her. Needless to say, as and when regular vacancies arise, in future, the persons appointed as above from the present rank list shall be preferred for appointment on regular basis according to their seniority.”

¶27

Pursuant to the judgment as per Ext.P3 order dated 11.07.2003 she was appointed as Guest Lecturer. Thereafter she was made Part-time Lecturer as per Ext.P5 order dated 01.01.2004. The petitioner submitted representation on the basis of which she was made Full-time Lecturer with effect from 12.01.2004 as per Ext.P6 dated 17.03.2005.

¶28

The writ petition is filed by the petitioner, inter alia, contending that she was eligible to be appointed as Full Time Lecturer even with effect from 18.03.2001 and she was entitled

¶29

W.A. No.166 of 2012

¶30

¶31

for all monetary benefits right from the said date. According to the petitioner, she was qualified , she was in the ranked list and she was entitled to be appointed. It is contended by the petitioner that the 1^st ranked person was already appointed with effect from 2002 and despite the fact that there was vacancy and she had to be appointed in the next arising vacancy, no such appointment was made. The petitioner contends that, even in 2001 the college in Kuttanad managed by the 1^st petitioner was having vacancy of Lecturer in Chemistry and the contrary contentions raised was totally incorrect.

¶32

The learned Single Judge, after considering rival contentions raised by the petitioner as well as the University, found that the University has only complied with the directions issued by the learned Single Judge in O.P.No.24388 of 2003. In so far as such judgment was binding on both the parties, the University was justified in appointing the petitioner as a guest lecturer as there was no 'sufficient periods' justifying the appointment of Full Time Lecturer. Hence the petitioner was not entitled for the relief prayed for. It was also found that petitioner's representation was considered by the University and

¶33

W.A. No.166 of 2012

¶34

¶35

she was appointed as Lecturer with effect from 12.01.2014 on Full-time basis and that being the situation there is no justification on the part of the petitioner to claim that she should have been appointed with effect from 08.03.2001 itself.

¶36

The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that, the reason for appointing the petitioner as guest lecturer was absolutely incorrect as there was sufficient period necessitating appointment of petitioner as Full Time Lecturer. This aspect has already been dealt with by the learned Single Judge and on factual consideration, it was found that University was justified in not appointing the petitioner as Full Time Lecturer as there was no sufficient periods for Chemistry enabling appointment of a full time lecturer. When such factual issues have already been taken note of by the learned Single Judge and has formed an opinion, we do not think that this Court will be justified in interfereing with such finding of fact especially when the finding is based on the materials produced before Court.

¶37

Under such circumstances, we do not think that there is any perversity or illegality on the part of the learned Single Judge in arising at such findings.

¶38

¶39

W.A. No.166 of 2012

¶40

That apart the writ petition is filed only in 2010 when

¶41

the order of appointment as per Ext.P6 was issued on 17.03.2005. Having accepted the said position, it is not open for the petitioner to claim the benefits from 18.03.2001.

¶42

In the result, we find no good ground to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The writ appeal is dismissed.

¶43

ASHOK BHUSHAN, Ag. CHIEF JUSTICE

¶44

A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE.

¶45

Dr.R.Asaletha v. Cochin University of Science and Technology and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.R.Asaletha v. Cochin University of Science and Technology and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajan Vs Nivethitha P. Haran

C.T.Kuriakose Vs Kerala State Electricity Board and Anor

C.C.Lonappan Vs a.G.Ravindranathan