Allowed

Shaju.P.Thomas v. M.G.University

Kerala HC2 Nov 2016WP(C)/1123/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition filed by a lecturer seeking approval of his initial appointment and consequential benefits. The court set aside an order denying benefits based on later qualifications, declaring the petitioner entitled to approval from the initial appointment date for teaching Pre-Degree classes.

What did the court decide?

Exhibit P6 (Government Order denying benefit) was set aside. Petitioner declared entitled to appointment approval from 20.10.1995 and all consequential benefits.

Shaju.P.Thomas Vs M.G.University — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/11TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 1123 of 2013 (M)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SHAJI.P.THOMAS, LECTURER, DEPARTMENT OF CHEMISTRY, BISHOP ABRAHAM MEMORIAL COLLEGE, THURUTHIKKAD, MALLAPPALLY, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. SRI.T.G.SUNIL (PRANAVAM) SRI.K.R.GANESH

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM - 686 562.

¶11

2. THE REGISTRAR, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM - 686 562.

¶12

3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶13

4. THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶14

5. THE MANAGER, BISHOP ABRAHAM MEMORIAL COLLEGE, THURUTHICAD, MALLAPPALLY, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689 584.

¶15

R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.VARUGHESE M.EASO, SC R3 & R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BEJOY CHANDRAN

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

mbr/

¶18

WP(C).No. 1123 of 2013 (M)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS:

¶21

EXHIBIT P1.	TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 20.10.1995 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P1(A).	TRUE COPY OF STAFF FIXATION ORDER ISSUED BY THE M.G.UNIVERSITY VIDE NO.2872/AC.B.III-2/96 DATED 24.06.96.
EXHIBIT P1(B).	TRUE COPY OF STAFF FIXATION ORDER ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION VIDE NO.B3-12588/95 DATED 13.05.96.
EXHIBIT P2.	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 09.11.1995 ISSUED BY THE PRINCIPAL OF B.A.M. COLLEGE TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3.	TRUE COPY OF G.O.(MS)NO.76/90/H.EDN. DATED 23.03.1990 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4.	TRUE COPY OF G.O.(MS)NO.30/96/H.EDN. DATED 12.02.1996 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5.	TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.B3/219/98 DATED 06.08.1998 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION.
EXHIBIT P6.	TRUE COPY OF G.O.(MS)NO.114/2002/H.EDN. DATED 05.09.2002 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7.	TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 28.01.2002 ISSUED BY THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS.
EXHIBIT P8.	TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 19.09.2002 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P9.	TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.AC.B1/1/1057/02 DATED 15.11.02 ISSUED BY THE M.G.UNIVERSITY.
EXHIBIT P10.	TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 08.10.2010 IN W.P.(C) NO.5323/04 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P11.	TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 21.11.2012 ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER AND JOINT REGISTRAR II(ADMN) TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P12.	TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.U.O.NO.4357/BII/2011/ACAD. DATED 11.08.2011 ISSUED BY THE M.G.UNIVERSITY.
EXHIBIT P13.	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 27.12.12.

¶22

--2--

¶23

--2--

¶24

WP(C).No. 1123 of 2013 (M)

¶25

EXHIBIT P14.	TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 23.6.2012
	FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE VICE CHANCELLOR
	OF M.G.UNIVERSITY (THROUGH PRINCIPAL).
EXHIBIT P15.	TRUE COPY OF U.O.NO.1205/B1/2013/ACAD
	DATED 2.3.2013 ISSUED BY THE M.G.UNIVERSITY.
EXHIBIT P16.	TRUE COPY OF G.O.(RT)NO.1725/94/H.EDN.
	DATED 16.11.1994 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT.

¶26

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

¶27

EXT.R1A:	TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 24.9.2012	LETTER BY THE	NO.32883/D1/12/H.EDN 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXT.R1B:	TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 10.9.2012	LETTER BY THE	NO.D5/26216/12 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXT.R1C:	TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 2.3.2013 I M.G.UNIVERITY.	LETTER SSUED B	NO.AC.B1/2/4060/10 Y THE REGISTRAR
EXT.R1D:	TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 20.11.2012	LETTER ISSUED	NO.F9-3/2010(PS) BY THE UGC.
			//TRUE COPY//
			P.S. TO JUDGE

¶28

mbr/

¶29

ANU SIVARAMAN, J.

¶30

W.P(C).No. 1123 of 2013

¶31

Dated this the 2^nd November, 2016

¶32

JUDGMENT

¶33

The prayers in this writ petition are as follows:

¶34

“i) to issue a writ of mandamus or othr appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records leading to Exhibit P15 order and quash the same.

¶35

i)(a) issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records leading to Exhibit P15 order and quash the same.

¶36

i)(b) to declare that petitioner is entitled to get his appointment approved as Lecturer with effect from 20.10.1995 in the light of Exhibit P10 judgment and Exhibit P12 order and that he is entitled to get all consequential benefits and emoluments arising therefrom,

¶37

i)(c) to issue a writ of mandamus, or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing respondents 1 and 2 to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Lecturer with effect from 20.10.1995 and further direct the respondents to disburse all consequential benefits and other emoluments to the petitioner arising therefrom.”

¶38

The petitioner was initially appointed as Lecturer in Chemistry in the 5^th respondent's College by Exhibit P1 order dated 20.10.1995. He was later appointed as Lecturer in the UGC scale by Exhibit P9 order with effect from 19.9.2002. The petitioner claims that he is entitled to approval of his initial appointment with effect from

¶39

¶40

WP(C).1123/13

¶41

20.10.1995. The petitioner places reliance on Exhibit P10 judgment of this Court to contend that he is entitled to approval of appointment with effect from the date of his initial appointment. He claims that he possessed all the required qualifications for appointment as Lecturer at the time of Exhibit P1 appointment order. He, therefore, claims that his appointment was eligible to approval of his appointment as Lecturer. It is contended that the denial of such benefit to the petitioner is illegal and improper in view of the findings contained in Exhibit P10 judgment.

¶42

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the University as well as the learned Government Pleader.

¶43

It is contended by the learned Standing Counsel for the University as well as the learned Government Pleader that the petitioner had acquired the UGC qualification only in July, 2001. He was therefore placed as Lecturer in the UGC scale with effect from 19.9.2002 by Exhibit P9 order. It is contended that the petitioner is not entitled for placement in the UGC scale or to any benefits thereof at any point of time prior to 19.9.2002.

¶44

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is restricting his claims to approval of appointment in the State scale in the 48% category with effect from the date of his initial appointment as per Exhibit P1. The said position is covered in favour of

¶45

WP(C).1123/13 3

¶46

the petitioner by Exhibit P10 judgment dated 8.10.2010. The petitioner would contend that he was fully qualified for appointment to teach Pre-Degree classes at the time of his appointment in 1995. By Exhibit P5 order of the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education, the petitioner had been granted sanction for approval of his appointment as Junior Lecturer in Chemistry only with effect from 15.2.1996. It is this restriction that is objected to by the petitioner.

¶47

I have considered the contentions advanced on either side. It is contended by the learned Standing Counsel for the University that the claim of the petitioner for UGC scale with effect from the date of his initial appointment is not in order and is not covered by Exhibit P10 judgment. However, in view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he is restricting his claim to approval of appointment as Lecturer in Chemistry to teach Pre-Degree classes with effect from the date of his initial appointment as per Exhibit P1, I am of the view that the issue is squarely covered by Exhibit P10 judgment.

¶48

In the above view of the matter, Exhibit P6 to the extent it denies the benefit to the petitioner is found to be bad in law. Exhibit P6 is, therefore, set aside. It is declared that the petitioner is entitled to approval of appointment with effect from 20.10.1995 as Lecturer to teach Pre-Degree classes. The petitioner will be entitled to approval of his appointment and to all consequential benefits pursuant to his appointment as Lecturer to teach Pre-Degree classes with effect from

¶49

¶50

WP(C).1123/13

¶51

20.10.1995. All attendant benefits shall be calculated and disbursed to the petitioner within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶52

The writ petition is ordered accordingly.

¶53

ANU SIVARAMAN

¶54

vgs9/11

¶55

The expression “Exhibit P6” occurring in the first and second lines of the operative portion of the judgment dated 02/11/2016 in W.P(C) No. 1123/2013 is corrected and substituted as “statement in Exhibit P5” as per order dated 31/05/2018 in I.A.No.3929/2018 in W.P(C) No.1123/2013.

¶56

Sd/-

¶57

Registrar (Judicial)

Shaju.P.Thomas v. M.G.University

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaju.P.Thomas v. M.G.University

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mary Sindhu A.S. Vs State of Kerala

N.Premakumari Vs State of Kerala

M.v.Jose Vs Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

Santhosh Vs Union of India

Kurukkat Karunakara Kurup Vs the State of Kerala

K.v.Poulose Vs the Director of Collegiate Education