Dismissed

Dr.T.Mettleda v. the Kerala University Rep.by Its Registrar

Kerala HC1 Feb 2018RP/955/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge dismissed the review petition and a fresh writ petition challenging the termination of the petitioner's services as Research Associate. The court held that the termination issue is conclusively covered by the judgment in the earlier writ petition and cannot be resurrected in a review or fresh petition.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's review petition and writ petition challenging termination of services were dismissed.

Dr.T.Mettleda Vs the Kerala University Rep.by… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 12TH MAGHA, 1939

¶5

RP.No. 955 of 2013

¶6

-----------------AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 21032/2007 DATED 19.02.2009 ----------

¶7

PETITIONER

¶8

DR.T.METTLEDA, PAYAS COTTAGE, MOONNAMMOODU, VATTIYOORKAVU P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-13.

¶9

BY ADV.SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. THE KERALA UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, UNIVERSITY P.O.,PALAYAM,, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.PIN-695034.

¶12

2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, UNIVERSITY P.O, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PIN-695034.

¶13

3. THE HONORARY DIRECTOR, CENTRE FOR WOMEN'S STUDIES, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, UNIVERSITY P.O, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695034.

¶14

4. UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION, BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG, NEW DELHI-110002.

¶15

5. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶16

R1 TO R3 BY ADVS. SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM, SC, SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM,SC R4 BY SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, CGC R5 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT MARRY BEENA JOSEPH

¶17

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-02-2018, ALONG WITH WPC NO.23694/2013,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

K.V.

¶19

RP.No. 955 of 2013

¶20

¶21

PETITIONERS ANNEXURES:

¶22

ANNEXURE 1: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT	DATED 19.7.2012 IN W.A NO 291/2010 BEFORE
THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF	KERALA AT ERNAKULAM.

¶23

ANNEXURE 11:TRUE COPY OF THE RULES FOR RESEARCH ASSOCIATES SHIP IN SCIENCE AND HUMANITIES INCLUDING SOCIAL SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY.

¶24

RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES: NIL ---------------------

¶25

/TRUE COPY/ K.V. P.S.TO JUDGE

¶26

P.V.ASHA J.

¶27

R.P.No.955 of 2013

¶28

¶29

W.P.(C).No.21032 of 2007 & W.P.(C).No.23694 of 2013

¶30

------------------------------------- Dated this the 1^st day of February, 2018

¶31

J U D G M E N T

¶32

R.P.No.955 of 2013

¶33

in W.P.(C).No.21032 of 2007

¶34

Petitioner was appointed as Research Associate on 15.09.1990, as per Ext.P4 order in W.P.(C).No.21032

¶35

of 2007 in Centre for Women's Studies, University of

¶36

Kerala under the University Grants Commission, Assistance for Women's Studies Research Centre. Subsequent to her appointment, the emoluments applicable to Research Associates under the University of Kerala was revised as per Ext.P6 order. While she was continuing so, the petitioner had

¶37

submitted Ext.P11 representation before the

¶38

Registrar, requesting for appointment as Research

¶39

R.P.No.955 of 2013 in W.P.(C).No.21032 of 2007 & W.P.(C).No.23694 of 2013 2

¶40

Officer pointing out that one Smt.Shobha B. Nair, who was working along with her as Research Associate and thereafter as Research Officer, got appointment as Lecturer in the Department of Sociology and the said post was vacant. As there was no response to Ext.P11 representation submitted on 09.02.2004, petitioner submitted another representation Ext.P15 before the Registrar on 28.11.2006, pointing out the denial of appropriate remuneration to her and requesting for appointment as Research Officer. Petitioner had also pointed out that during the 10^th plan period, the UGC had intended to give a boost to the scheme of women's studies by providing more women teachers in the system of higher education and extension. She pointed out that with her 16 years of experience in women's studies she was qualified and eligible for special preference in the selection of Lecturer. However, no action was taken on it. Petitioner thereafter filed

¶41

R.P.No.955 of 2013 in W.P.(C).No.21032 of 2007 & W.P.(C).No.23694 of 2013 3

¶42

W.P.(C).No.1659 of 2007 before this Court and by Ext.P17 judgment that writ petition was disposed of, directing the first respondent-the Kerala University

¶43

to consider her representation after affording her an opportunity of hearing.

¶44

Thereafter the Vice Chancellor heard the

¶45

petitioner and passed Ext.P18 order. In this order, the Vice Chancellor stated that the Syndicate had in its meeting held on 01.08.2003, had considered the question of the continuance of the petitioner and had resolved that her request need not be agreed to. The Syndicate thereafter, permitted her to continue on temporary basis until further orders on payment of eligible emoluments. It was stated that she was unable to draw salary on account of the objections from the Finance wing. It was stated that Syndicate had already taken a decision on 25.01.2007 that

¶46

petitioner's request for remuneration would be

¶47

R.P.No.955 of 2013 in W.P.(C).No.21032 of 2007 & W.P.(C).No.23694 of 2013 4

¶48

acceded to, by payment for the period upto 25.01.2007 and her services would be terminated with effect from

¶49

that date. Simultaneously her request for permanency and promotion would be rejected, as the University has not decided to create the post of Research Associate and her appointment was purely on temporary basis. The third decision was that to implement the decision taken by the Syndicate on 25.01.2007 to terminate her services as there was no UGC grant to continue the post and the University has not decided to create the post. On the basis of a decision in Ext.P18, Ext.P19 order was passed, terminating the services of the petitioner. Immediately thereafter, petitioner approached this Court, challenging Exts.P18 and P19 orders in W.P.(C).No.21032 of 2007.

¶50

That writ petition was disposed of, as per judgment dated 19.02.2009, upholding the decision of the Syndicate. Petitioner filed W.A.No.291 of 2010

¶51

R.P.No.955 of 2013 in W.P.(C).No.21032 of 2007 & W.P.(C).No.23694 of 2013 5

¶52

and the Division Bench of this Court found that the claim for enhanced remuneration/arrears due to petitioner was not considered by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, it was observed that it is for the appellant to take up the issue independently by filing a fresh writ petition or filing a review petition. Subsequent to that, petitioner filed this R.P.No.955 of 2013.

¶53

In this review petition, petitioner claimed the arrears of pay from 01.04.1998 onwards and salary from 01.04.2003 to 25.07.2007 at the revised rate.

¶54

It is submitted by both sides that subsequent to the filing of the review petition, petitioner was paid the remuneration at the revised rates except the contingency grant and HRA. Subsisting claim in the R.P is only with respect of the termination.

¶55

By the judgment in the Writ Petition,

¶56

R.P.No.955 of 2013 in W.P.(C).No.21032 of 2007 & W.P.(C).No.23694 of 2013 6

¶57

Ext.P18 order to the extent it related to the termination with effect from 25.01.2007 was upheld. In the Writ Appeal that portion of the judgment in the Writ Petition relating to termination was not varied. By Annexure-I judgment, the Division Bench permitted the petitioner to file review petition only with respect to her claim for higher remuneration, seeing that the said that question was not decided.

¶58

In view of the above circumstances, review petition cannot be entertained on questions which are already decided and permission is not granted by the Division Bench.

¶59

W.P.(C).No.23694 of 2013

¶60

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges Ext.P19 order passed by the Government and seeks a direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in the post of Research Associate in the Centre for Women's Studies, University of Kerala. She

¶61

R.P.No.955 of 2013 in W.P.(C).No.21032 of 2007 & W.P.(C).No.23694 of 2013 7

¶62

has also prayed for a direction to the respondents to disburse the remuneration due to the petitioner and

¶63

all other allowances with effect from 05.10.1990. Petitioner has also prayed for a declaration that she is entitled to promotion with retrospective effect to the higher posts of Research Associate in the Centre for Women's Studies, University of Kerala.

¶64

Ext.P19 is an order passed by Government on a petition submitted by the petitioner against the termination of her services, after the petitioner was unsuccessful in her challenge against it in W.P. (C).No.21032 of 2007. Government considered her request on the basis of the report furnished by the Registrar of the Kerala University, in which it was stated that UGC had directed that the staff appointed during the 7^th and 8^th plan may not be allowed to continue during the 9^th plan and based on that the Syndicate had terminated the petitioner's services as

¶65

R.P.No.955 of 2013 in W.P.(C).No.21032 of 2007 & W.P.(C).No.23694 of 2013 8

¶66

per its decision dated 18.04.2007. It was also pointed out that petitioner's case was considered by the Vice Chancellor based on the judgment of this Court and thereafter, it was decided to implement the Syndicate's decision and terminated her services. It was also stated that the petitioner had joined the Centre as Research Associate on 22.12.1989 and she was appointed as Research Officer w.e.f. 15.09.1990 and that her appointment to the post of Research Officer in the Centre was not by virtue of her earlier appointment as Research Associate. The representation was accordingly rejected.

¶67

Petitioner points out that the order passed

¶68

by the Government is contrary to the facts as well as law. In this writ petition, petitioner has produced various documents to show that UGC had allowed funds for the 9^th and 10^th plan and it was not being utilized by the University.

¶69

The University has also filed a counter

¶70

R.P.No.955 of 2013 in W.P.(C).No.21032 of 2007 & W.P.(C).No.23694 of 2013 9

¶71

affidavit. They have produced Ext.R1(a) notification based on which petitioner was appointed as Research Associate on 15.09.1990 as per Ext.R1(b) order. It was stated that the appointment under the UGC Scheme was purely on a temporary basis in tune with the guidelines issued by the UGC on a plan year basis and emoluments were also being revised in accordance with the UGC Guidelines. Regarding the remuneration, it was stated that petitioner's request for revision of emoluments along with the question of continuance as Research Associate was considered and thereafter on the basis of a direction issued in W.P.(C).No.21032 of 2007, she was paid her admissible remuneration. Petitioner's termination was effected on the basis of

¶72

the Syndicate's decision, as per Ext.R1(g) proceedings of the Vice Chancellor. It is further stated that the Centre for Women's Studies has received only a grant of Rs.10 lakhs during the 10^th

¶73

R.P.No.955 of 2013 in W.P.(C).No.21032 of 2007 & W.P.(C).No.23694 of 2013 10

¶74

plan and although, a sum of Rs.3 lakhs was allotted by the 4^th respondent during the period from 2009-12.

¶75

The said amount was not released by the UGC. It is also stated that the Women's Study Unit fee collected from the students of the affiliated Colleges of the University was not intended for payment of salary to the staff of the UGC Scheme of Centre for Women's Studies but for organizing different activities.

¶76

The petitioner filed a reply affidavit, pointing out the aims and objectives of the Women's Studies Centre in Kerala University, but stating that the University failed to carry out the objectives and

¶77

even though, the Women's Studies Centre was established for the empowerment of the women it did not even utilize the funds received during the 10^th plan period.

¶78

The question regarding the termination of

¶79

R.P.No.955 of 2013 in W.P.(C).No.21032 of 2007 & W.P.(C).No.23694 of 2013 11

¶80

services of the petitioner is already concluded by

¶81

the judgment in W.P.(C).No.21032 of 2007. Petitioner's challenge against Ext.P19 by which Government rejected her request cannot resurrect her

¶82

claim against the termination of services. The Government has only reiterated what is stated by the

¶83

University, termination was ordered by the University. Petitioner did not approach the Government invoking any statutory remedy. No provision is also pointed out, which enables Government to review or revise the decision of the syndicate or the University. By Ext.P6 judgment this Court had already upheld the termination and the Division Bench had confirmed that part of Ext.P6 judgment. Petitioner cannot raise the issue of termination again in a fresh writ petition. Even otherwise the petitioner did not seek permission from

¶84

this Court to approach Government, if at all, there

¶85

R.P.No.955 of 2013 in W.P.(C).No.21032 of 2007 & W.P.(C).No.23694 of 2013 12

¶86

is any such remedy available to her. It is true that petitioner has produced certain documents, which she received on application under Right to Information Act, regarding the grant received during the plan period, based on which petitioner asserts that the reason for termination was not legal. But when Ext.P7 Division Bench judgment upholds the termination/the order passed by the Vice Chancellor based on the decision of the Syndicate, the issue raised in the second writ petition is hit by constructive res judicata.

¶87

The writ petition fails and is therefore

¶88

dismissed.

¶89

Sd/- P.V.ASHA, JUDGE.

¶90

Dr.T.Mettleda v. the Kerala University Rep.by Its Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.T.Mettleda v. the Kerala University Rep.by Its Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saji Basheer Vs Dr.K.M.Abraham

The Chief Secretary, Government of Kerala Vs Saji Basheer

Dileepkumar K Vs the Chief Engineer(Hrm)

Subramaniyan Vs Shri Raghuraman

Venugopalan .K. Vs the Managing Director Kerala Water Authority

Suresh.M.C Vs Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd.