Allowed

Rincymol Mathew v. the Mahathma Gandhi University

Kerala HC3 Sept 2018WP(C)/13265/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the University's decision not to reckon her service in a self-financing school for Career Advancement Scheme. Court held nature of entity is not a criterion for reckoning past service under UGC Regulations 10.1 and set aside the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; University directed to count petitioner's past service under CAS within one month.

Rincymol Mathew Vs the Mahathma Gandhi… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

MONDAY ,THE 03RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018 / 12TH BHADRA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 13265 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

RINCYMOL MATHEW

¶8

AGED 48, W/O. SABU MATHEW,ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, SCHOOL OF BEHAVIOURAL SCIENCES, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY,PRIYADARSINI HILLS P.O., KOTTAYAM - 686 560.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI. G. SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

1 THE MAHATHMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR, PRIYADARSINI HILLS P.O., KOTTAYAM - 686 560.

¶12

2 THE VICE CHANCELLOR MAHATHMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY,PRIYADARSINI HILLS P.O.,KOTTAYAM - 686 560.

¶13

3 THE SYNDICATE MAHATHMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY,PRIYADARSINI HILLS P.O.,KOTTAYAM - 686 560.

¶14

BY ADVS. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY SRI.ASOK M. CHERIAN SC M.G. UNIVERSITY

¶15

OTHER PRESENT:

¶16

gp smt ranjitha

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03.09.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WP(C).No. 13265 of 2018

¶19

¶20

J U D G M E N T

¶21

Petitioner's past service in the School of Medical Education under the Mahatma Gandhi University was not considered for Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) and this decision of the University is under challenge. The School of Medical Education is a selffinancing institute run by the Mahatma Gandhi University. In view of the fact that it is a self-financing institute, the University by impugned order decided not to reckon her service under the Career Advancement Scheme. It is appropriate to refer Clause 10.1 of the UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education 2010.

¶22

“10.1. Previous regular service, whether national or international, as Assistant Professor, Associate Professor or Professor or equivalent in a University, College, National Laboratories or other scientific/professional Organizations such as the CSIR, ICAR, DRDO, UGC, ICSSR, ICHR, ICMR, DBT, etc., should be counted for direct recruitment and promotion under CAS of a teacher as Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, Professor or any other nomenclature these posts are described as per Appendix III-Table No.II provided that:

¶23

(a) The essential qualifications of the post held were not lower than the qualifications prescribed by the UGC for Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and Professor as the case may be.

¶24

(b) The post is/was in an equivalent grade or of the pre-revised scale of pay as the post of Assistant Professor (Lecturer) Associate Professor (Reader) and Professor.

¶25

(c) The candidate for direct recruitment has applied through proper channel only.

¶26

(d) The concerned Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and Professor should possess the same minimum qualifications as prescribed by the UGC for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and Professor, as the case may be.

¶27

(e) The post was filled in accordance with the prescribed selection procedure as laid down in the Regulations of University/State Government/Central Government/ Concerned Institutions, for such appointments.

¶28

(f) The previous appointment was not as guest lecturer for any duration, or an ad hoc or in a leave vacancy of less than one year duration. Ad hoc or temporary service of more than one

¶29

WP(C).No. 13265 of 2018

¶30

¶31

year duration can be counted provided that:

¶32

(i) the period of service was of more than one year duration;

¶33

(ii) the incumbent was appointed on the recommendation of duly constituted Selection Committee; and

¶34

(iii) the incumbent was selected to the permanent post in continuation to the ad hoc or temporary service, without any break.

¶35

(g) No distinction should be made with reference to the nature of management of the institution where previous service was rendered (private/local body/Government), was considered for counting past services under this clause.”

¶36

The regulation regarding previous service enumerated the conditions on which past service should be reckoned. The University had not disputed with the facts like qualification, selection procedure, etc. The only dispute that was taken up is that the School of Medical Education is only a self financing institute run by the University.

¶37

The nature of entity is not a criteria for the purpose of reckoning past service.

¶38

The UGC regulations clearly stipulates the norms for counting past service. Since the petitioner had worked as Assistant Professor in a University run self financing college, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to reckon her past service in accordance with the UGC regulation 10.1. As per Ext.P4, Ext.P21 subsequent decision is set aside. Therefore, necessary payment shall be given to the petitioner based on Ext.P4, without any delay.

¶39

Therefore, the impugned order is set aside. The University is directed to pass orders counting past service, in accordance with the UGC regulation, without any delay, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶42

Judge

¶43

WP(C).No. 13265 of 2018

¶44

¶45

APPENDIX

¶46

PETITIO	NER'S/	S' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT	P1	A TRUE COPY OF THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIV	ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER BY THE ERSITY, DATED 7.9.2000.
EXHIBIT	P2	A TRUE COPY OF THE 4.3.2015.	REQUEST OF THE PETITIONER DATED
EXHIBIT	P3	A TRUE COPY OF THE THE 2ND RESPONDENT	REQUEST OF THE PETITIONER BEFORE DATED 12.12.2017.
EXHIBIT	P4	A TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 12.1.2015.	ORDRE OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT	P5	A TRUE COPY OF THE KERALA DATED 7.10.1	ORDER OF THE GOVERNMENT OF 999.
EXHIBIT	P6	A TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 6.1.2009.	ORDER OF THE M.G. UNIVERSITY
EXHIBIT	P7	A TRUE COPY OF THE DATD 28.3.2007.	ORDER OF THE M.G. UNIVERSITY
EXHIBIT	P8	A TRUE COPY OF THE RESPONDENT DATED 12	NOC ISSUED BY THE SECOND .10.2010.
EXHIBIT	P9	A TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 18.2.2011.	PROCEEDINGS OF THE DIRECTOR
EXHIBIT	P10	A TRUE COPY OF THE RESPONDENT DATED 3.	ORDER PASSED BY THE SECOND 3.2011.
EXHIBIT	P11	A TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 12.10.2004.	ORDER OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT	P12	A TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 12.4.2005.	ORDER OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT	P13	A TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 23.6.2005.	ORDER OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT	P14	A TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 21.10.2000.	ORDER OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT	P15	A TRUE COPY OF THE	UGC REGULATION DATED 28.6.2010.
EXHIBIT	P16	A TRUE COPY OF THE 4.3.2015.	REQUEST OF THE PETITIONER DATED

¶47

WP(C).No. 13265 of 2018

¶48

¶49

EXHIBIT	P17 A TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST OF THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE VICE CHANCELLOR DATED NIL.
EXHIBIT	P18 A TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST OF THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED NIL.
EXHIBIT	P19 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.A. NO.794 OF 2013 DATED 7.12.2016 BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT	P20 A TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DATED 3.7.2017.
EXHIBIT	P21 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE M. G. UNIVERSITY DATED 17.3.2018.

¶50

//TRUE COPY//

¶51

P.A. TO JUDGE

Rincymol Mathew v. the Mahathma Gandhi University

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rincymol Mathew v. the Mahathma Gandhi University

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

Sajeev Vattoli Vs Sunitha Jose

M. Muhammed Fasil Vs the State of Kerala

Shiji Varghese Vs the State of Kerala

Moideen Vs Ajeesh Kunnath

Manoj Alias Manojkumar Vs Shri. Abdul Rasheed

Mathuchan George Vs Bank of Baroda