Allowed

The Kerala Veterinary and Animal Sciences University v. Dr.Mammen J Abraham

Kerala HC21 Dec 2020WA/495/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed two writ appeals by the Kerala Veterinary and Animal Sciences University. The Court held the single judge erred in directing the University to consider the petitioner's promotion application under the 1996 UGC Scheme which had lapsed. The Court ordered the University to consider the case under the valid 2006 UGC Scheme.

What did the court decide?

The judgment of the single judge in WPs 17697/2010 and 15404/2019 is set aside. The University must consider the petitioner's CAP under the 2006 UGC Scheme if an application is filed within two months

The Kerala Veterinary and Animal Sciences University… — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

¶6

MONDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942

¶7

WA.No.1944 OF 2019

¶8

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 15404/2019(A) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 11/7/2019

¶9

APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO.1 & 2:

¶10

1 KERALA VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCE UNIVRSITY LAKKIDI P.O, POOKKODE, WAYANAD-673 576, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.

¶11

2 REGISTRAR, KERALA VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCE UNIVERSITY, LAKKIDI P.O, POOKKODE, WAYANAD-673 576

¶12

BY ADV. SMT.AYSHA YOUSEFF, SC, KERALA VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCES UNIVERSITY

¶13

RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:

¶14

DR.MAMAN J.ABRAHAM

¶15

AGED 59, S/O. JOHN ABRAHAM, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF PATHOLOGY, COLLEGE OF VETENARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCE, MANNUTHY, THRISSUR.

¶16

OTHER PRESENT:

¶17

SRI. P. RAVINDRAN-SR. SRI. ROBSON PAUL -S.C.

¶18

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30-11-2020, ALONG WITH WA.495/2020, THE COURT ON 21-12-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

WA No.1944/19 & 495/2020

¶20

-:2:-

¶21

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶22

PRESENT

¶23

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶24

¶25

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

¶26

MONDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942

¶27

WA.No.495 OF 2020

¶28

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 17697/2010(J) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 15/10/2018

¶29

APPELLANT/ADDL.3RD RESPONDENT:

¶30

THE KERALA VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCES UNIVERSITY REPRESENTED BY REGISTRAR, POOKODE, WAYANAD DISTRICT

¶31

BY ADV. SMT.AYSHA YOUSEFF, SC, KERALA VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCES UNIVERSITY

¶32

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 & 2:

¶33

1 DR.MAMMEN J ABRAHAM ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, CENTRE FOR EXCELLENCE IN PATHOLOGY, COLLEGE OF VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCES, THRISSUR 680 651

¶34

2 THE KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY MAIN CAMPUS, VELLANIKKARA, TRICHUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR PIN 680 654

¶35

WA No.1944/19 & 495/2020

¶36

-:3:-

¶37

3 THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION COMMISSIONER AND ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001

¶38

R2 BY ADV. SMT.SURYA BINOY SRI.ROBSON PAUL, SC, KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY

¶39

R1 BY SRI.P.RAVINDRAN (SR) R3 BY SRI.A.J.VARGHESE, SR.GOVT.PLEADER

¶40

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30-112020, ALONG WITH WA.1944/2019, THE COURT ON 21-12-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶41

WA No.1944/19 & 495/2020

¶42

-:4:-

¶43

J U D G M E N T

¶44

Dated this the 21^st day of December, 2020

¶45

Shaffique, J.

¶46

WA No. No.495/2020 has been filed challenging judgment dated 15/10/2018 in WP(C) No. 17697/2010. Though review petition was filed as RP No.928/2019 by the Kerala Veterinary and Animal Sciences University (hereinafter referred to as the Veterinary University), the same was dismissed. WA No. 1944/2019 has been filed challenging judgment dated 11/7/2019 in WP(C) No. 15404/2019.

¶47

The substantial issue raised by the writ petitioner is that he was not granted Career Advancement Promotion (CAP) to the post of Professor despite the fact that he was qualified and competent for CAP. The facts arising in these cases are common which are stated as under and the parties are described as shown in WP(C) No. 17697/2010 unless otherwise stated.

¶48

The petitioner while working as Associate Professor in the Veterinary Science in Veterinary Pathology Section coming

¶49

WA No.1944/19 & 495/2020

¶50

-:5:-

¶51

under the Kerala Agricultural University, submitted an application for CAP as per the UGC Scheme of 1996 approved by the University on 2/3/2000. The Government of Kerala has laid down certain norms and regulations on the procedure for promotion of Readers to Professors under the Career Advancement Scheme as per Ext.P4 dated 30/4/2002. Petitioner appeared for the CAP under the 1996 UGC package. According to the petitioner, he had cleared the initial stage by obtaining minimum of three positive recommendations from experts on research publications/books. According to him, he could not have been invited for interview if he did not have the publications as envisaged under the scheme. When he sought for information regarding his application, he was informed by letter dated 9/2/2010 (Ext.P5 produced in WP(C) No. 17697/2010) that the Screening Committee did not recommend him for promotion as the research/publications and performance in the interview/ discussions were not up to the mark. However, by letter dated 4/3/2010 (Ext.P6 produced in WP(C) No. 17697/2010), petitioner was informed that the Screening/ Interview is scheduled to be held in the first week of April 2010 and since he was not recommended in the previous screening, he

¶52

WA No.1944/19 & 495/2020

¶53

-:6:-

¶54

was requested to submit fresh application on or before 10/3/2010. Petitioner contended that the appointment under CAP can only be in accordance with the UGC scheme. The Committee has not been constituted in accordance with UGC Guidelines and therefore the selection made by them has no effect. He therefore filed WP(C) No. 17697/2010 inter alia challenging Ext.P5 and sought for a direction to the Agricultural University to conduct selection and appoint him to the post of Professor under the 1996 CAP Scheme in accordance with the UGC Guidelines, Ext.P4 dated 30/4/2002 and for other consequential reliefs. In the meantime, Kerala Agricultural University was trifurcated creating Veterinary University and the said University was impleaded as additional 3^rd respondent. He filed an application seeking for a direction to the Veterinary University to consider his claim for promotion under the CAP.

¶55

The learned Single Judge after having found that there had been a change in circumstances especially trifurcation of the University, directed the Agricultural University to forward all available records with them to the Veterinary University. Petitioner was permitted to apply for promotion under the CAS

¶56

WA No.1944/19 & 495/2020

¶57

-:7:-

¶58

and it was further directed that if such an application is filed, the same shall be considered by the additional 3^rd respondent (Veterinary University) in accordance with the scheme within three months.

¶59

The Veterinary University filed a review petition stating that they cannot consider the Career Advancement Promotion under the 1996 UGC Scheme. But the learned Single Judge after referring to S.55(6) of the Kerala Veterinary and Animal Science University Act, 2010 observed that no case has been made out to review the judgment.

¶60

After the judgment in WP(C) No. 17697/2010, the Agricultural University forwarded his application along with the connected papers to the Veterinary University. Petitioner also resubmitted his application. Petitioner received a reply dated 9/5/2019 (Ext.P8 produced in WP(C) No. 15404/2019) stating that his application cannot be considered for two reasons. One is that the claim for CAP under the 1996 UGC Regulations had already been rejected by the Agricultural University and therefore the Veterinary University has no authority to reexamine the matter. It is further stated that Veterinary University was granting CAPs as

¶61

WA No.1944/19 & 495/2020

¶62

-:8:-

¶63

per 2006 UGC Regulations. Since petitioner's application for CAP is as per the 1996 Regulations, the said application cannot be reexamined as per the 2006 Regulations. It is challenging Ext.P8 order that WP(C) No.15404/2019 has been filed.

¶64

Learned Single Judge having considered the respective contentions observed that when there was a direction in WP(C) No.17697/2010, the Veterinary University was bound to consider the same and accordingly having found that Ext.P8 is unsustainable, direction was issued to the 1^st respondent to ensure that the petitioner's case is considered under the 1996 UGC Scheme for promotion as Professor under the Career Advancement Scheme.

¶65

Having regard to the contentions urged on either side,

¶66

the first question to be considered is whether there was justification on the part of the learned Single Judge in directing the Veterinary University to consider the CAP of the writ petitioner under the 1996 Scheme. First of all, in the judgment dated 15/10/2018 in WP(C) No. 17697/2010, the learned Single Judge did not make mention about any particular scheme. However, the petitioner's claim was that he should be considered

¶67

WA No.1944/19 & 495/2020

¶68

-:9:-

¶69

for selection to the post of Professor under the CAP Scheme of 1996 strictly in accordance with the guidelines specified under Ext.P3. The main contention urged by the petitioner was that Ext.P4 Government Order dated 30/4/2002 had laid down certain criteria for selecting candidates for promotion from the post of Reader to Professor under the CAP Scheme. The eligibility criteria was 8 years experience as a Reader and the candidate should have a minimum of 5 research publications out of which two could be the books he had submitted for evaluation assessment before the interview. The assessment of the research publications, including books is to be done by three eminent experts in the subject which shall be different from those called for interview to be conducted later on. It was also indicated that the University has to hold interview for promotion only in respect of those candidates who have cleared by obtaining minimum of three positive recommendations from the experts on their research publications/books.

¶70

Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner after referring to Ext.P5 and also the information received by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act submits that the

¶71

WA No.1944/19 & 495/2020

¶72

-:10:-

¶73

procedure prescribed for making the assessment has not been strictly complied with. It is pointed out that from the answers received by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, it is rather clear that the procedure prescribed under Government Order dated 30/4/2002 has not been complied with.

¶74

The learned counsel appearing for the Agricultural University based on the counter affidavit stated that the Screening Committee which evaluates publications/research papers of the applicant had assessed the overall performance of the petitioner during interview and did not recommend him for promotion to the cadre of Professor with the observation that research publications and performance in the interview/ discussion was not up to the mark. He was therefore directed to submit fresh application on or before 10/3/2010. But he did not submit any fresh application. In the meantime, he was transferred to the Veterinary University on his exercising option. It is further stated that the petitioner had applied for CAP in the discipline of Veterinary Pathology and since the entire faculty of Veterinary and Animal Science have been amalgamated in the Veterinary University, there is no provision to conduct CAP for the

¶75

WA No.1944/19 & 495/2020

¶76

-:11:-

¶77

said faculty. They further contended that pursuant to orders issued by this Court, Agricultural University forwarded all available records to the Veterinary University.

¶78

In fact, the petitioner had challenged Ext.P5 in WP(C) No. 17697/2010. But the learned Single Judge in the impugned order only directed the Agricultural University to forward the available records to the Veterinary University and the petitioner was called upon to apply for promotion under the CAS and it was further observed that, if such an application is filed, the same shall be considered by the Veterinary University.

¶79

In the writ petition filed as WP(C) No. 15404/2019, petitioner had contended that he had resubmitted his application to the Veterinary University. He placed reliance on Exts.P6 and P7. After having considered the same, the Veterinary University opined that the Committee now constituted has no authority to reexamine the decision of the Selection Committee which declined the CAP as Professor to the petitioner and insofar as he did not submit any application in the approved format with reference to CAP 2006 UGC/ICAR Regulations, the Committee is not in a position to examine and grant promotion. The application

¶80

WA No.1944/19 & 495/2020

¶81

-:12:-

¶82

transmitted by Kerala Agricultural University was as per 1996 Regulations, which was finally declined by the said University in 2009 and observed that the application cannot be reexamined as per 2006 UGC/ICAR Regulations. Therefore, he was requested to submit application under the CAP 2006 Regulations along with relevant documents.

¶83

In fact, in the earlier round of litigation, especially in WP(C) No. 17697/2010, this Court did not set aside Ext.P5 order dated 9/2/2010 sent by the Registrar to the petitioner by which he was informed that he was not selected. But based on Ext.P6, he was directed to submit a fresh application without mentioning anything further. Learned Single Judge while deciding WP(C) No. 15404/2019 proceeded on the basis that the Veterinary University ought to have considered the application of the petitioner under the 1996 UGC scheme. But as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for appellant, the application based on the 1996 UGC scheme had been rejected by the Agricultural University as per Ext.P5 produced in WP(C) No. 17697/2010 and it is pursuant to Ext.P6 dated 4/3/2010 that he was directed to submit a fresh application. In Ext.P6, though reference has been

¶84

WA No.1944/19 & 495/2020

¶85

-:13:-

¶86

made to the 1996 UGC Scheme, by the time the learned Single Judge delivered the judgment on 15/10/2018, the 1996 UGC Scheme was replaced by 2006 Scheme. Though the appellant had filed RP No.928/2019 stating that the performance of the writ petitioner under CAP cannot be considered by the Veterinary University, the same came to be rejected. It is relevant to note that after filing of the writ petition, substantial time had elapsed when directions had been issued by the learned Single Judge on 15/10/2018.

¶87

As far as Veterinary University is concerned, it did not have the advantage of verifying the credentials of the petitioner based on the 1996 UGC Scheme. Though the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 17697/2010 intended that the application of the petitioner should be considered under the 1996 UGC Scheme, it had become an impossible task as far as the Veterinary University is concerned. Therefore, we are of the view that by the time the judgment was delivered, the 1996 Scheme had already been replaced by the 2006 UGC Scheme. It was not appropriate for the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 17697/2010 to have directed the petitioner's application to be considered under the

¶88

WA No.1944/19 & 495/2020

¶89

-:14:-

¶90

1996 Scheme. The learned Single Judge proceeded on the basis that as per Section 55(6) of the University Act, a person employed by the Kerala Agricultural University is transferred to the Veterinary University on the same conditions of service as were applicable to him before such transfer. Section 55(6) of the Kerala Veterinary and Animal Sciences University Act, 2010 reads as under:-

¶91

“55. Transfer of certain Colleges, Institutions and employees to the University – xxxxx

¶92

6) Every person employed by the Kerala Agricultural University, and serving in any of the colleges, research stations or institutions specified in sub-section (1) shall, based on their option, as from the specified date, be transferred to the University on the same conditions of service as were applicable to him before such transfer and continue to be governed by the same conditions of service unless and until such conditions are altered in accordance with the provisions of the Statutes and Ordinances. xxx”

¶93

There is no dispute about the conditions of service as far as the petitioner is concerned. The only question is whether Career Advancement Scheme which has lost its relevance can be considered by the Veterinary University after the scheme itself has changed. We are of the view that the Veterinary University

¶94

WA No.1944/19 & 495/2020

¶95

-:15:-

¶96

was justified in taking a view that the case of the petitioner can be considered only under the 2006 UGC Scheme.

¶97

In the light of the aforesaid discussion, we allow the appeals and set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge in WP(C) Nos. 17697/2010 & 15404/2019. On a proper application being filed by the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, the appellant University shall consider the CAP of the petitioner as per the 2006 UGC Scheme in accordance with the procedure prescribed.

Sd/-

A.M.SHAFFIQUE

JUDGE

Sd/-

GOPINATH P.

JUDGE

WA No.1944/19 & 495/2020

¶106

-:16:-

¶107

APPENDIX OF WA 495/2020

¶108

APPELLANT'S EXHIBITS:

¶109

ANNEXURE 1 KVASU/GA/A1/10195/19 DT. 9-5-2019 ISSUED BY APPELLANT RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS ANNEXURE R2(A) COPY OF UNIVERSITY LETTER NO.GA/K2/13887/2018 DATED 15.10.2018 ANNEXURE R2(B) COPY OF UNIVERSITY LETTER NO.GA/K1/5378/2010 DATED 9.2.2010 ANNEXURE R2(C) COPY OF UNIVERSITY LETTER NO.GA/K1/23802/2002 DATED 4.3.2010

The Kerala Veterinary and Animal Sciences University v. Dr.Mammen J Abraham

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Kerala Veterinary and Animal Sciences University v. Dr.Mammen J Abraham

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Steel & Industrial Forgings Ltd. Vs a.Valsan

The Corporate Manager Vs Prakash Joseph.T

Satheesh Kumar R., Vs Union of India

Vidhun.M, Vs the State of Kerala

Jayesh Babu K.R. Vs the State of Kerala

Dr.Amrutha T. Vs State of Kerala