Partly allowed

Dr.M.v.Suresh v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Aug 2020WP(C)/30498/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

College Principal promotions were challenged over UGC qualifications and seniority. The court set aside two appointments contrary to UGC Regulations 2018 and directed a revised select list and appointments. It rejected seniority based on service under another management and dismissed the connected petition.

What did the court decide?

Two Principal appointments set aside; management directed to revise the select list and fill both vacancies from qualified applicants within two months of receipt of the judgment.

Dr.M.v.Suresh Vs State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 23RD SRAVANA, 1942 WP(C).No.16341 OF 2019(P)

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

DR.M.V.SURESH AGED 53 YEARS ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR(ECONOMICS), NSS HINDU COLLEGE, CHANGANACHERRY,RESIDING AT MANATTU HOUSE, VELLIYARA.P.O, AYROOR, PATHANAMTHITTA-689612.

¶7

BY ADVS. SRI.LIJU.V.STEPHEN SMT.INDU SUSAN JACOB

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, 6TH FLOOR, VIKAS BHAVAN, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-695033.

¶10

2 THE SECRETARY, N.S.S.COLLEGES' CENTRAL COMMITTEE, NSS HEAD QUARTERS,PERUNNA,CHANGANACHERRY-2, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶11

3 UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR,PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695034.

¶12

4 MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, MAHAGMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS.P.O, ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM-686672.

¶13

5 CALICUT UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, TIRUR-CALICUT ROAD, CALICUT UNIVERSITY.P.O, THENHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE-673635.

¶14

6 KANNUR UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, THAVAKKARA CIVIL STATION P.O, KANNNUR DISTRICT-670002.

¶15

7 DR.P.GEETHA,PRINCIPAL, NSS COLLEGE MANJERI,COLLEGE ROAD,KUTTAN THAMPURAN,

¶16

WP(C).Nos.16341 & 30498 OF 2019(P)

¶17

¶18

MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676122.

¶19

8 DR.M.R.RENUKA,PRINCIPAL, SVR NSS COLLEGE,VAZHOOR,THEERTHAPADAPURAM, VAZHOOR,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686505.

¶20

9 DR.RAJEEVAN,PRINCIPAL, NSS COLLEGE RAJAKUMARI,KULAPPARACHAL.P.O, RAJAKUMARI,IDUKKI DISTRICT-685619.

¶21

¶22

DR.ANIL KUMAR.V.V,PRINCIPAL, NSS COLLEGE,NILAMEL, SH 1, NILAMEL, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691536.

¶23

11 DR.M.S.ANILKUMAR, PRINCIPAL, MAHATMA GANDHI COLLEGE, KESAVADASAPURAM, PATTOM.P.O, SREE NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695004.

¶24

12 DR.V.M.ANANDAKUMAR,PRINCIPAL, VTM NSS COLLEGE,DHANUVACHAPURAM, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695503.

¶25

BY ADV.SRI.P.GOPAL BY SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM, SC, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA BY SRI.ASOK M. CHERIAN, SC, M.G. UNIVERSITY BY SRI.M.SASINDRAN, SC, KANNUR UNIVERSITY BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. BY ADV. SRI.K.R.GANESH

¶26

OTHER PRESENT:

¶27

SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, CALICUT UTY SR.GP.SRI.ARAVINDHA KUMAR BABU

¶28

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14.08.2020, ALONG WITH WP(C).NO.30498/2019(J), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶29

WP(C).Nos.16341 & 30498 OF 2019(P)

¶30

¶31

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶32

PRESENT

¶33

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶34

FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 23RD SRAVANA, 1942

¶35

WP(C).No.30498 OF 2019(J)

¶36

PETITIONER:

¶37

DR.M.V.SURESH AGED 53 YEARS ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR (ECONOMICS), NSS HINDU COLLEGE, CHANGANACHERRY, RESIDING AT MANATTU HOUSE, VELLIYARA P.O., AYROOR, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 612

¶38

BY ADVS. SRI.LIJU.V.STEPHEN SMT.INDU SUSAN JACOB

¶39

RESPONDENTS:

¶40

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001

¶41

2 THE SECRETARY N.S.S. COLLEGES' CENTRAL COMMITTEE, NSS HEAD QUARTERS, PERUNNA, CHANGANACHERRY - 2, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT

¶42

N.S.S. COLLEGES' CENTRAL COMMITTEE, NSS HEAD

¶43

3 UNIVERSITY OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 034

¶44

4 MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS.P.O., ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM - 686 672

¶45

5 KANNUR UNIVERSITY

¶46

REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, THAVAKARA, CIVIL

¶47

WP(C).Nos.16341 & 30498 OF 2019(P)

¶48

¶49

STATION. P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 002

¶50

6 DR. BEENA S. PRINCIPAL, PAZHASSI RAJA NSS COLLEGE (PRNSS COLLEGE), MATTANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 702

¶51

BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPAL BY ADV. SRI.B.MURALEEDHARAN BY SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM, SC, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA BY SRI.ASOK M. CHERIAN, SC, M.G. UNIVERSITY BY SRI.M.SASINDRAN, SC, KANNUR UNIVERSITY BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. BY ADV. SRI.K.R.GANESH BY SRI.ARAVIDAKUMAR BABU, SR.GP BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC

¶52

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14.08.2020, ALONG WITH WP(C).NO.16341/2019(P), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶53

WP(C).Nos.16341 & 30498 OF 2019(P)

¶54

¶55

J U D G M E N T

¶56

In both these writ petitions appointment of the Principals in the Colleges under the second respondent is under challenge.

¶57

Second respondent issued Ext.P10 circular dated 13.02.2019 informing the Principals of the respective Colleges under it to obtain willingness from qualified Associate Professors for promotion as Principals, in order to prepare the Seniority List of Associate Professors eligible for promotion as Principals as per UGC guidelines. The qualification of Associate Professors was stated to be Ph.D and guideship with a total experience of 15 years of service; should have a minimum score of 400 APIs from Categories II & III (cumulative) using PBAS scoring proforma developed by UGC. Principals were requested to forward the willingness on or before 01.03.2019.

¶58

WP(C).Nos.16341 & 30498 OF 2019(P)

¶59

¶60

Thereafter as per Ext.P11 letter dated 25.03.2019 the second respondent informed the Principals to obtain willingness from Associate Professors to be considered for promotion as Principals having eligibility mentioned in the UGC notification dated 18.07.2018. It was stated that Associate Professors who have already submitted willingness need not apply again. Petitioner submitted Ext.P12 application. Thereafter Ext.P13 order was issued on 29.05.2019, granting promotion to 6 Associate Professors including respondents 7 and 9

¶61

as Principals. According to the petitioner, respondents 7 and 9 did not have the requisite qualification as prescribed in the UGC Regulations, 2018 regarding research publications. Even though petitioner has impleaded respondents 7 to 12, he is challenging the promotion granted to respondents 7 and 9 only.

¶62

As per the UGC Regulations, 2018 which came into force with effect from 18.07.2018 apart from Ph.D

¶63

WP(C).Nos.16341 & 30498 OF 2019(P)

¶64

¶65

and 15 years of teaching/research experience, the

¶66

Associate Professors/Professors should have minimum of 10 research publications in peer-reviewed or UGC listed journals and a minimum of 110 research score as per Appendix II Table II. Petitioner alleged that respondents 7 and 9 did not have the minimum requirement of 10 research publications and therefore they were not eligible to be appointed as Principals.

¶67

Ext.P13 order by which the 7^th respondent who is Sl.No.1 therein was promoted as Principal and

¶68

posted at NSS College, Manjeri and 9^th respondent at sl.no. 3 was posted at NSS College, Rajakumari are under challenge in this writ petition. Petitioner claims that the appointment of Principal shall be made in accordance with the UGC Regulations as amended, in the light of the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Radhakrishanan Pillai v. Travancore Devaswom

¶69

Board [2016 (2) KLT 245]. Promotion shall be made on the basis of the seniority from among teachers who are

¶70

WP(C).Nos.16341 & 30498 OF 2019(P)

¶71

¶72

having the qualification prescribed by UGC. Petitioner claims that he was entitled to be appointed in preference to respondents 7 and 9.

¶73

Petitioner has a further complaint that the service rendered by him as Lecturer in Economics in St. Stephen's College Pathanapuram for the period from 29.07.1996 to 21.03.1998 prior to his joinning NSS College, Nenmara on 23.03.1998 is not reckoned towards his seniority though the said service was reckoned for his appointment as Senior Scale and Selection grade Lecturer, Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, etc. It is stated that he had approached the 2 nd respondent with Ext.P14 representation dated 21.05.2019 claiming the same. He claims that the UGC Regulations provide for the same.

¶74

6 . In W.P.(C) 30498 of 2019, petitioner

¶75

challenges the promotion granted to Dr. Beena who is the 6 th respondent therein, as per order dated 01.08.2019 (produced as Ext P19 therein). On promotion

¶76

WP(C).Nos.16341 & 30498 OF 2019(P)

¶77

¶78

she was posted as Principal at PR NSS College, Mattannur with effect from 07.08.2019. Petitioner claims seniority over her on the strength of his service in St. Stephen's College and he got placement as Selection Grade Lecturer earlier to her on 30.07.2006 whereas she was placed in Selection grade only on 13.12.2006. According to him, this court has in the judgments in Suresh v. Manager, S.N.M College [2003 (3) KLT 839] and Janardhanan Pillai v Travancore Devaswom Board [2005(4) KLT 522], held that the seniormost selection Grade Lecturer shall be promoted as Principal. Therefore he claims that as per UGC Regulation 2018, the service rendered by him in St. Stephen's College is liable to be counted towards seniority.

¶79

The second respondent has filed counter affidavit in both the writ petitions. It is stated that Ext.R2(a) list of 12 Associate Professors was prepared based on their seniority in service for

¶80

WP(C).Nos.16341 & 30498 OF 2019(P)

¶81

¶82

promotion against vacant post of Principals of various Colleges under the Management. It is stated that against the vacancy which arose on the retirement of one Dr.R.T. Assad on 31.05.2019 from NSS College, Manjeri, the 7^th respondent was appointed from Ext.R2(a) list with effect from 07.06.2019 as per order dated 31.05.2019. It is stated that she fulfilled the qualifications prescribed for the post of Principal as laid down in UGC Regulation, 2010 as amended by UGC Regulation 2016. The 9^th respondent was promoted and appointed at NSS College, Rajakumari against a vacancy which arose on the retirement of the then incumbent on 31.03.2019 in NSS College at Rajakumari under M.G. University. Similarly other Associate Professors were also appointed against the vacancies which existed in various Colleges. It is stated that the Government of Kerala had issued Ext.R2(b) order adopting and implementing UGC Regulation 2018 in the State, only on 29.09.2019,

¶83

WP(C).Nos.16341 & 30498 OF 2019(P)

¶84

¶85

though with retrospective effect from 18.07.2018.

¶86

It is stated that the University of Kerala

¶87

implemented the 2018 Regulations as per Ext.R2(c) decision dated 02.09.2019. The second respondent stated that respondents 7 and 9 possess the qualification prescribed for the post of Principal of

¶88

the concerned Colleges as prescribed in UGC Regulations, 2010 as amended by 2016 Regulations and are eligible to be appointed as Principals of NSS College, Manjeri and NSS College, Rajakumari respectively, where vacancies arose on 01.04.2019, prior to the implementation of the UGC Regulations.

¶89

Regarding the claim for seniority it is stated that the service rendered by him in a different management cannot be reckoned towards seniority and that the fact that said service was reckoned for granting senior scale and selection grade has no relevance in determining his seniority under the 2^nd respondent management.

¶90

WP(C).Nos.16341 & 30498 OF 2019(P)

¶91

¶92

In the counter affidavit filed in W.P.(C) No.30419 of 2019 2^nd respondent stated that petitioner's appointment under the NSS management was only on 18.03.2018. His appointment was approved by Calicut University on 23.03.1998 and his probation was declared as per order dated 04.07.2000 (Ext.R2(a) therein). It is stated that the service rendered by him under the NSS management from 23.03.1998 alone would be reckoned for his seniority. It is stated that Dr. Beena is fully qualified for promotion as Principal in accordance with the 2018 Regulations and she is senior to the petitioner.

¶93

According to Shri P. Gopal, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent, Government while issuing Ext.R2(b) order dated 29.09.2019 did not state anything regarding the appointments already made, when it was ordered that the UGC Regulations, 2018 would take effect from 18.07.2018. According to the 2^nd respondent, the Government has not directed any review

¶94

WP(C).Nos.16341 & 30498 OF 2019(P)

¶95

¶96

of the appointments made in between the issue of order

¶97

Ext.R2(b) on 29.09.2019 implementing the UGC Regulations, 2018 with retrospective effect from 18.07.2018, because the Government thought it not necessary to disturb the appointments already made. It is stated that in Ext.R2(c) order issued on 02.09.2019, the University of Kerala as per clause 4 therein gave an opportunity to the teachers who are

¶98

eligible for promotion during the period from 23.03.2016 till the date of notification of UGC Regulation 2018, to exercise option either to come under Regulations 2010 or to Regulations 2018, subject to Clause 6.3 of UGC Regulations, 2018. Though the University of Kerala implemented the UGC Regulations as per order dated 02.09.2019 the other Universities like University of Calicut and MG University had not amended their statutes in tune with UGC Regulations, 2018 and in tune with Ext.R2(b) order of Government.

¶99

Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on

¶100

WP(C).Nos.16341 & 30498 OF 2019(P)

¶101

¶102

the Full Bench judgment of this Court and argued that petitioner is entitled to be promoted in preference to respondents 7 and 9. Shri P.Gopal the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent points out that respondents 7 and 9 were posted in Colleges under the jurisdiction of Calicut University and MG University when their Statutes were not amended in tune with Regulations 2018. In the present case the Government issued Ext.R2(b) order only on 29.09.2019 after the promotions of respondents 7 and 9 were effected. Ext.P10 Circular was issued well before 29.09.2019 and appointments were also made on 31.05.2019 with effect from 07.06.2019. According to the second respondent, in case the Government intended to unsettle the appointments already made it would have been directed to review the appointments made during the interregnum. However in this case the Government did not issue any direction regarding the selections already made. Relying on the judgment of the Apex

¶103

WP(C).Nos.16341 & 30498 OF 2019(P)

¶104

¶105

Court in A.A.Calton v. The Director of Education and

¶106

Another [AIR 1983 SC 1143],the learned counsel argued that the appointment which were already made till the order Ext.R2(b) order was issued would be protected unless otherwise ordered.

¶107

It is pointed out that the only complaint of

¶108

the petitioner is that the respondents did not have sufficient number of research publications.

¶109

The 7^th respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that she was appointed in a vacancy which

¶110

arose in NSS College, Manjeri consequent to a retirement on 31.05.2019 and that the Calicut University to which the College is affiliated, has not so far adopted the 2018 Regulations and therefore she is governed by the 2010 Regulations as amended in 2016 and that she is fully qualified in accordance with 2016 Regulations.

¶111

The 9^th respondent has also filed a counter affidavit stating that he was appointed against a

¶112

WP(C).Nos.16341 & 30498 OF 2019(P)

¶113

¶114

vacancy consequent to a retirement on 31.03.2019 in NSS College, Rajakumari under the MG University and that the University has not implemented the 2018 Regulations so far and therefore his appointment is governed by the 2010 Regulations as amended in 2016, as per which he is fully qualified. He has also stated that he has more than 20 research publications out of which 10 are peer-reviewed.

¶115

Heard the learned Counsel appearing on both sides. The contention of the petitioner is that respondents 7 and 9 do not have the qualifications as prescribed under the UGC Regulations 2018. As per notification No. F.1-2/2017(EC/PS), the UGC has issued 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 2018 in supersession of its Regulations 2010 together with all amendments made therein from time to time. Clause 1.3 therein provides

¶116

WP(C).Nos.16341 & 30498 OF 2019(P)

¶117

¶118

that the Regulations 2018 shall come into force from

¶119

the date of notification. The notification was published in the gazette dated 18.07.2018. It is stated that State Government as per Ext P18/R2(b) order dated 29.09.2019 approved and implemented the Regulations with effect from 18.07.2018 i.e.,the date of its notification in the gazette. The Universities were directed to incorporate the regulations in their statutes and regulations within a period of one month. It is necessary to have a look at the difference in the qualification consequent to the issuance of 2018 Regulations.

¶120

17. The qualification prescribed as per UGC Regulation 2010 as amended by UGC Regulation 2016 is as follows:-

¶121

i ) Master's Degree with 55% by a recognized University ii) A Ph.D. degree in concerned/allied/relevant discipline in the Institution concerned with evidence of published work and research guidance. iii) Associate Professor/Professor with a total experience of 15 years of teaching in Universities/Colleges iv) A minimum score (400) as stipulated in the academic performance indicator (API) set out in category (ii) and (iii) of Appendix III of UGC Regulations 2016.

¶122

WP(C).Nos.16341 & 30498 OF 2019(P)

¶123

¶124

18. The qualifications prescribed in 2018

¶125

regulations are the following:

¶126

i) ii)	Ph.D. Degree Professor/Associate Professor with a total
	service/experience of at least 15 years of
	teaching/research in Universities/Colleges.
iii)	A minimum of 10 research publications in peer-
	reviewed for UGC-listed Journals
iv)	A minimum of 110 research score as per Appendix-II
	Table-II. It is clarified by the UGC in Appendix-II
	Table-II that calculating academic/research score
	shall be from the minimum of three categories out of six categories.

¶127

19. The contention of the petitioner is that the

¶128

respondents 7 and 9 do not have the requisite number of research publications as prescribed in the 2018 regulations. The answer of respondents 7 and 9 is that they are having the qualifications under the 2010 Regulations as amended in 2016.

¶129

The question to be determined is whether

¶130

the appointments made by the Manager on 31.05.2019 are not liable to be disturbed on the ground that Government issued Ext.P18/R2(b) order adopting and implementing the UGC Regulation 2018 only on 29.09.2019 and that on promotion the teachers were posted in Colleges under Universities which have not

¶131

WP(C).Nos.16341 & 30498 OF 2019(P)

¶132

¶133

adopted the Regulations. Though the order was issued by Government only on 29.09.2019, it is given retrospective effect from 18.07.2018.

¶134

In this case it is relevant to note that Ext.P11 circular was issued on 25.03.2019 by which the 2^nd respondent directed the Principals to call for applications for appointments as Principals from among Professors having the eligibility as prescribed in 2018 Regulations, specifically stating that the same was in continuation of Ext.P10 circular and those who applied pursuant to Ext.P10 need not apply. This circular was issued even before the vacancies arose.

¶135

The issue regarding promotion to the post of Principals and applicability of UGC Regulations is already settled by a Full bench of this Court in the judgment in Radhakrishna Pillai 's case (supra) and it was held as follows in paragraph 17:

¶136

“17. Therefore, irrespective of whether the University Acts enacted under Entry 25 of list III or the Statutes framed thereunder are amended in line with the UGC Regulations or not, in view of its adoption by the State of Kerala with effect from

¶137

WP(C).Nos.16341 & 30498 OF 2019(P)

¶138

¶139

8/09/2010 as per Government Order dated 10/12/2010, the Universities and affiliated colleges in Kerala State are bound to comply with the UGC Regulations, 2010. Viewed in that manner, the natural consequence is that the principles laid down by this Court in Raveendran's case cannot be sustained and is overruled.”

¶140

The contention of Sri. Gopal is that in

¶141

respect of 2010 Regulations Government issued the order adopting the same within a period of three months and in this case it took more than one year and therefore in the absence of any direction to review the appointments made in the interrugnum the promotions are not liable to be disturbed. But such a contention cannot be heard from the 2^nd respondent who issued Ext.P11 circular calling for willingness of Associate Professors having the eligibility as per the 2018 Regulations. Ext.R2(a) list of 12 Associate Professors which is stated to have been prepared by the 2^nd respondent 'after verifying the qualification and the documents appended' 'based on seniority in service for promoting them in the vacant posts of

¶142

WP(C).Nos.16341 & 30498 OF 2019(P)

¶143

¶144

Principal of various colleges under the management' as stated in paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit would also show that the 2^nd respondent is very well aware of 2018 regulations. The inaction of Universities in adopting the UGC regulations cannot make the promotions made contrary to UGC Regulations 2018 valid.

¶145

In the judgment in A.A.Calton v. The

¶146

Director of Education and Another (AIR 1983 SC 1143), relied on by Sri. Gopal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court

¶147

found that the proceedings for selection started in 1973 whereas the amendment came into force on 16.08.1975 and the Director was even directed by the High Court on 19.08. 1975 at the instance of the appellant, to pass orders under Section 16F(4) and in such cases the action of the Director cannot be said to be without authority. Paragraph 5 of the judgment which is relevant reads as follows:

¶148

“5. It is no doubt true that the Act was amended by U.P. Act 26 of 1975 which came into force on August 18, 1975 taking away the power of the Director to make an

¶149

WP(C).Nos.16341 & 30498 OF 2019(P)

¶150

¶151

appointment under Section 16-F(4) of the Act in the case of minority institutions. The amending Act did not. however, provide expressly that the amendment in question would apply to pending proceedings under Section 16-F of the Act. Nor do we find any words in it which by necessary intendment would affect such pending proceedings. The process of selection under Section 16-F of the Act commencing from the stage of calling for applications for a post up to the date on which the Director becomes entitled to make a selection under Section 16-F(4) (as it stood then) is an integrated one. At every stage in that process certain rights are created in favour of one or the other of the candidates. Section 16-F of the Act cannot, therefore, be construed as merely a procedural provision. It is true that the legislature may pass laws with retrospective effect subject to the recognised constitutional limitations. But it is equally well settled that no retrospective effect should be given to any statutory provision so as to impair or take away an existing right, unless the statute either expressly or by necessary implication directs that it should have such retrospective effect. In the instant case admittedly the proceedings for the selection had commenced in the year 1973 and after the Deputy Director had disapproved the recommendations made by the Selection Committee twice the Director acquired the jurisdiction to make an appointment from amongst the qualified candidates who had applied for the vacancy in question. At the instance of the appellant himself in the earlier writ petition filed by him the High Court had directed the Director to exercise that power. Although the Director in the present case exercised that power subsequent to August 18, 1975 on which date the amendment came into force, it cannot be said that the selection made by him was illegal since the amending law had no retrospective effect. It did not have any effect on the proceedings which had commenced prior to August 18, 1975. Such proceedings had to be continued in accordance with the law as it stood at the commencement of the said proceedings.”

¶152

The factual circumstances arising in this

¶153

case are entirely different. Therefore, the judgment in Calton's case will not help the respondents. Therefore the selection and appointment of respondents

¶154

WP(C).Nos.16341 & 30498 OF 2019(P)

¶155

¶156

7 and 9 as Principals contrary to the Regulations, 2018 requires interference.

¶157

The claim of petitioner for service

¶158

seniority reckoning the service rendered under a different management is based on Regulation 10.1 of UGC Regulations 2010, which provides for reckoning of

¶159

past service for career advancement promotion. It is seen that the petitioner has already enjoyed the benefit of said service for the purpose of placement as selection grade. But Clause 10 of 2018 regulations

¶160

or any other clause therein does not provide that such service rendered in another college would be reckoned for seniority. Regulation 10 and 10.1 read as follows:

¶161

10.0 Counting of Past Services for Direct Recruitment and Promotion under CAS:

¶162

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 and DBT, should count for the direct recruitment and promotion under the CAS of a teacher as Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, Professor or any other nomenclature, provided that:

¶163

xxx

¶164

WP(C).Nos.16341 & 30498 OF 2019(P)

¶165

¶166

27. It is clear from clause 10 that the service

¶167

rendered in another college is reckoned only for career advancement scheme promotions or for direct recruitment. Promotion as Principal is not under (CAS) promotion. Moreover the Division Bench of this court has after referring to various provisions in the University Act, Statutes, etc, held in Alfred Vimal Kumar v. The Vice Chancellor, University of Kerala [2002 (1) KLT 921] that the service rendered by a teacher under another management is not liable to be counted towards seniority. Seniority in a deparment can only be under a department under the same management. Therefore the claim raised by the petitioner for seniority reckoning the service prior to his joining, in a college under a different management cannot be reckoned towards his seniority. The judgments relied on by the petitioner are not cases where the incumbents claimed seniority based on service in another management and those judgments

¶168

WP(C).Nos.16341 & 30498 OF 2019(P)

¶169

¶170

cannot have any application in this case. Hence there is no reason to interfere with the promotion of 6 th respondent in W.P.(C).No.30498 of 2019.

¶171

Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to seniority based on his service in another management.

¶172

In the above circumstances, W.P.(C) No.

¶173

16341 of 2019 is ordered as follows:

¶174

The order Ext.P13 to the extent it relates to respondents 7 and 9 shall stand set aside. The 2^nd respondent shall therefore revise the select list for appointment of Principals and make appointment against the 2 vacancies from among the qualified hands who had submitted applications/willingness pursuant to Exts.P2 and P3 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

¶175

W.P.(C) No.30498 of 2019 is dismissed.

Sd/-

P.V.ASHA, JUDGE

WP(C).Nos.16341 & 30498 OF 2019(P)

¶180

¶181

APPENDIX OF WP(C).No.16341/2019

¶182

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶183

EXHIBIT P1	A TRUE COPY OF THE DEGREE CERTIFICATE OF M.A. ECONOMICS ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DATED 24.7.1992.
EXHIBIT P2	A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATES OF M.PHIL ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DATED 16.9.1994.
EXHIBIT P3	A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DATED 23.5.2014.
EXHIBIT P4	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14.03.1997 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA.
EXHIBIT P5	A TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF PAY FIXATION OF PETITIONER AS LECTURER SENIOR SCALE DATED 28.9.2016.
EXHIBIT P6	A TRUE COPY OF THE PROMOTION ORDER DATED 27.08.2014 OF PETITIONER AS SELECTION GRADE LECTURER WITH EFFECT FROM 30.7.2006 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31.8.2016 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8	A TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF PAY FIXATION OF PETITIONER AS ASSISTANT PROFESSOR
EXHIBIT P9	A TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF PAY FIXATION OF PETITIONER AS ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR.
EXHIBIT P10	A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 13/02/2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶184

WP(C).Nos.16341 & 30498 OF 2019(P)

¶185

¶186

EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 25.03.2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶187

EXHIBIT P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶188

EXHIBIT P13 A TYPED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.05.2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶189

EXHIBIT P14 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 21.05.2019 MADE TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶190

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT R2(a): TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF ASSOCIATE PROFESSORS WHO EXPRESSED THEIR WILLINGNESS TO BE PROMOTED AS PRINCIPAL IN NSS COLLEGES PREPARED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶191

EXHIBIT R2(b): TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE GOVERNMENT G.O.(P)NO.28/2019/HEDN DATED 29/09/2019.

¶192

EXHIBIT R2(c): TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA NO.AC.FII/GENERAL/UGC-R-2018/19 DATED 02/09/2019.

¶193

EXHIBIT R2(d): TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE MANAGER OF NSS COLLEGE, NEMMARA NO.D/4543/2000 DATED 04/07/2000. EXHIBIT R9(A) TRUE COPY OF THE PABS PROFORMA FOR PROMOTION UNDER THE UGC CAREER ADVANCEMENT SCHEME SUBMITTED BY THIS RESPONDENT BEFORE THE MANAGEMENT EXHIBIT-R7(a) TRUE COPY OF THE PABS PROFORMA FOR DIRECT RECRUITMENT FOR THE POST OF PRINCIPAL SUBMITTED BEFORE THE MANAGEMENT.

¶194

WP(C).Nos.16341 & 30498 OF 2019(P)

¶195

¶196

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 30498/2019

¶197

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶198

EXHIBIT P1	A TRUE M.A. EC DATED 2	COPY OF THE DEGREE CERTIFICATE OF ONOMICS ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER 4.7.1992.
EXHIBIT P2	A TRUE ISSUED	COPY OF THE CERTIFICATES OF M.PHIL TO THE PETITIONER DATED 16.9.1994.
EXHIBIT P3	A TRUE DOCTOR PETITIO	COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF DEGREE OF OF PHILOSOPHY ISSUED TO THE NER DATED 23.5.2014.
EXHIBIT P4	A TRUE ISSUED	COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14.03.1997 BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA.
EXHIBIT P5	A TRUE FIXATIO SCALE D	COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF PAY N OF PETITIONER AS LECTURER SENIOR ATED 28.9.2016.
EXHIBIT P6	A TRUE 27.08.2 LECTURE BY THE	COPY OF THE PROMOTION ORDER DATED 014 OF PETITIONER AS SELECTION GRADE R WITH EFFECT FROM 30.7.2006 ISSUED 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7	A TRUE ISSUED	COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31.8.2016 BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8	A TRUE FIXATIO PROFESS	COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF PAY N OF PETITIONER AS ASSISTANT OR
EXHIBIT P9	A TRUE FIXATIO PROFESS	COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF PAY N OF PETITIONER AS ASSOCIATE OR.
EXHIBIT P10	A TRUE 13/02/2	COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P11	A TRUE 25.03.2	COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P12	A TRUE PETITIO	COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY NER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶199

WP(C).Nos.16341 & 30498 OF 2019(P)

¶200

¶201

EXHIBIT P13 A TYPED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.05.2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶202

EXHIBIT P14 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.06.2019 IN I.A.NO.1/2019 IN WRIT PETITION NO.16341 OF 2019 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶203

EXHIBIT P15 A TRUE COPY OF THE PUBLIC NOTICE DATED 16.10.2018 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION.

¶204

EXHIBIT P16 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.06.2019 ISSUED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION.

¶205

EXHIBIT P17 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 02.09.2019 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶206

EXHIBIT P18 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.09.2019 ISSUED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA. EXHIBIT P19 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 01.08.2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT PROMOTING TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT AS PRINCIPAL.

¶207

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

¶208

EXHIBIT R2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE MANAGER OF NSS COLLEGE, NEMMARA NO.D/4543/2000 DATED 04/07/2000. EXHIBIT R2(B) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE GOVERNMENT G.O.(P)NO.28/2019/HEDN DATED 29/09/2019.

Dr.M.v.Suresh v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.M.v.Suresh v. State of Kerala

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

Ajeesh Kumar M., Vs Dr.D.Girija

Kuthuparamba Educational Society, Vs State of Kerala

K.B.Nizam Vs Jeevan Babu K. I.A.S.

Thara.B.S Vs State of Kerala

Dr.M.v.Suresh Vs Director of Collegiate Education

K.Ibrahim Vs State of Kerala