A petition for regularisation in a permanent post for a temporary lecturer in a self-financing unit was dismissed. The Court held the claim is barred as similarly situated persons were denied regularisation in a subsequent judgment, and no conflict exists with an earlier decision on entitlement to salary which did not address regularisation.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:-
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/28TH POUSHA, 1937
W.P.(C).No.18372 of 2003 (K)
PETITIONER(S):-
DR.VALYOMANA, LECTURER IN PHYSICS, SCHOOL OF TECHNOLOGY & APPLIED SCIENCES, EDAPPALLY.
BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI.
RESPONDENT(S):-
W.P.(C) NO.18372 OF 2003-K - 2 -
R1 TO R3 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI. VARUGHESE M.EASO. R4 TO R6 BY ADVS. SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SENIOR ADVOCATE) SRI.S.M.PRASANTH.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
W.P.(C). NO.18372 OF 2003-K
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-
| EXT.P1 | PHOTOCOPY OF NOTIFICATION NO.S.F.I./STAS/1748/97 DATED 26.5.97 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. |
|---|---|
| EXT.P2 | PHOTO COPY OF MEMO NO.S.F.I//STAS/MCA/1748/97 DATED 9.3.1998 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. |
| EXT.P3 | PHOTOCOPY OF UNDERTAKING BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 25.11.1999. |
| EXT.P4 | PHOTOCOPY OF NOTIFICATION NO.79/93/AII(I)/ADMN. DATED 20.12.1993 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. |
| EXT.P5 | PHOTOCOPY OF COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT IN O.P.742/98, ON 8.3.98. |
| EXT.P6 | TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.STAS/DIR/R.MCA/2000-01 DATED 5.6.2000 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. |
| EXT.P7 | PHOTOCOPY OF STATEMENT OF INCOME AND EXPENDITURE OF STAS FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1997-2001. |
| EXT.P8 | PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER NO.SF.I/STAS/4932/95-96 DATED 3.9.2002 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. |
| EXT.P9 | PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT, DATED 21.2.2003 IN CMP.NO.10839/2003 IN O.P.NO.6139/2003-E. |
| RESPONDE ----------------- |
NT'S EXHIBITS:- ------------------------- |
| EXT.R1(a) | TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.11.2015 IN W.A.339/15. |
| EXT.R4(a) | TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 26.5.1997 PUBLISHED IN MATHRUBHUMI DAILY DT.30.05.1997. |
| EXT.R4(b) | TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT.7.9.1998 ISSUED BY THE INSTITUTE OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. |
| Vku/- | [ true copy ] |
K. Vinod Chandran, J --------------------------------------W.P.(C).No.18372 of 2003-K
Dated this the 18th day of January, 2016.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner claims regularisation in the post to
which she was appointed as per Exhibit P2 pursuant to Exhibit P1 notification. The petitioner raises grounds of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation, insofar as Exhibit P1 itself contains a stipulation that the post though was temporary, would be likely to be continued and the intention was to regularise the incumbent appointed once the viability of the post is established.
The claim of similarly placed persons who had been working in
WP(C) No.18372 of 2003 - 2 -
the School of Technology and Applied Sciences [for brevity “STAS”], which is a self-financing unit of the University, was rejected by the Division Bench. Therein also similar contentions were raised. The petitioners were appointed to a temporary post; but were continued for long. The petitioners had the qualification as prescribed by the All India Council for Technical Education [for brevity “AICTE”]. The petitioners were shown in various designations before the AICTE, to comply with the necessary conditions of qualification and experience as provided by the AICTE to technical institutions coming under it, so as to ensure certain quality of the faculty. However, the appointment being not made as per the statutes of the University; nor to a permanent sanctioned post, it was held to be not comparable to the regular appointments made to sanctioned posts, in the University or to its affiliated colleges.
the faculty and the infrastructure is provided from the funds
WP(C) No.18372 of 2003 - 3 -
generated from the students, as fees. In such circumstance, the Division Bench found that the petitioners therein could not claim regularisation in permanent posts. The specific ground of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation was negatived. It was held that the University cannot be compelled to treat the petitioners as being at par with teachers of the University on the basis of either of the aforesaid grounds. In such circumstance, the issue is no more alive for consideration.
WP(C) No.18372 of 2003 - 4 -
judgment cited, since the issue of regularisation never was raised for consideration there.
WP(C) No.18372 of 2003 - 5 -
counsel appearing for the said respondents would submit that they have already been terminated and their writ petitions are pending. The contentions with respect to the respondents 4 to 6 would be
left open, for them, to be agitated in the appropriate proceedings.
The writ petition would stand dismissed. No costs.
Sd/K.Vinod Chandran Judge.
vku/-
[ true copy ]
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a lecturer appointed to a temporary post in a self-financing unit can claim regularisation in a permanent post based on promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation after being continued for
Whether there is a conflict between this Court's Division Bench judgment in W.A.Nos.442 of 2014 and 339 of 2015 and in W.A.No.3639 of 2001 regarding regularisation of temporary teachers.
Whether the claim for treatment as a permanent employee can be granted after being declined in subsequent proceedings where it was not raised earlier.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
W.A.Nos.442 of 2014 and 339 of 2015Followed¶30
W.A.Nos.442 of 2014 and 339 of 2015
W.A.No.3639 of 2001Referred¶38
W.A.No.3639 of 2001
Dr. Valyomana
Mahatma Gandhi University
The Vice Chancellor
The Director
Dr. Joji J. Anchanattu
Dr. S. Krishna Kumar
K.Vinod Chandran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
