Allowed

Dr.K.P.Santhosh v. the Kannur University

Kerala HC6 Jul 2021WP(C)/20654/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A retired professor challenged the University's rejection of his promotion claim based on retirement in active service. The Court held that since the application was filed within the entitlement period and select committee formation was delayed by external factors, the University must conduct proceedings with retrospective effect.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P6 order set aside and direction issued to respondents to convene Selection Committee and consider promotion claim with effect from 01.10.2009 within three months.

Dr.K.P.Santhosh Vs the Kannur University — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

WP(C) NO. 20654 OF 2020

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN TUESDAY, THE 6^TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 15TH ASHADHA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 20654 OF 2020

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

DR.K.P.SANTHOSH AGED 60 YEARS ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR AND HEAD (RETD), DEPARTMENT OF PHYSICS, KANNUR UNIVERSITY, KANNUR-670002, RESIDING AT CHITHSUKHEE, THAMBURAN ROAD, NADUVATTOM, NORTH BEYPORE P.O., KOZHIKODE.

¶8

BY ADV P.C.SASIDHARAN

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE KANNUR UNIVERSITY REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, CIVIL STATION.P.O, KANNUR -670002.

¶11

2 THE VICE CHANCELLOR KANNUR UNIVERSITY, CIVIL STATION.P.O, KANNUR -670002.

¶12

BY ADV SRI.M.SASINDRAN

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C) NO. 20654 OF 2020

¶15

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P6 order of the University rejecting the request of the petitioner for consideration of his claim for promotion as Professor on the ground that he is no longer in active service of the University/College.

¶18

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the University.

¶19

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed as Reader in the 1^st respondent University on 01.10.2009. The post of Reader was later re-designated as Associate Professor. It is submitted that prior to his appointment in the University, the petitioner had served as Associate Professor in the Payyannur College till 30.09.2009. It is submitted that the petitioner is entitled and eligible for promotion and placement as Professor under the Career Advancement Scheme provided for by the UGC Regulations which were in force. It is submitted that seeking placement as Professor under the Career Advancement Scheme with effect from 01.10.2009, the petitioner had submitted Ext.P2 request before the University. By Ext.P3, the University had

¶20

WP(C) NO. 20654 OF 2020

¶21

¶22

required the petitioner to furnish clarifications with regard to the delay which had occurred in submitting the application for promotion. By Ext.P4, the petitioner had submitted his reply stating that the petitioner had not been granted pay protection, taking note of the earlier pay drawn by him in the Payyannur College and the request for pay protection had been allowed only on 16.04.2018. It is submitted that thereafter, he had submitted the request for promotion as Professor in terms of the UGC Scheme on 30.12.2019 and that the delay was not deliberate or intentional. Ext.P5 request was also made by the petitioner before the Vice Chancellor seeking consideration of his claim for promotion. However, by Ext.P6, the petitioner was informed that Clause 6.3.9 of the UGC Regulations 2010 provides that the incumbent teacher must be on the roll and active service of the University/College on the date of consideration by the Selection Committee for promotion. It was therefore informed that since the petitioner had already retired on 31.05.2020, the request made by the petitioner could not be considered.

¶23

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's eligibility for placement as Professor under the Career Advancement Scheme is not disputed. It is therefore contended that in view of the fact that the petitioner had submitted the application as early as on 2019, the respondents ought to have

¶24

WP(C) NO. 20654 OF 2020

¶25

¶26

convened a Selection Committee and considered th e API score o f the petitioner and considered his claim for promotion with effect from the date of his entitlement, that is, 01.10.2009. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in identical cases, the University had granted promotions to retired officers as well and Ext.P9 order is produced in evidence thereof. It is submitted that in the case of the officer referred to in Ext.P9 also, the Career Advancement Scheme promotion was granted after 10 years of the entitlement.

¶27

A counter affidavit has been placed on record by the 1^st respondent. It is contended that the facts stated with regard to the date of joining of the petitioner and the earlier service are not disputed. It is stated that the order regarding protection to pay in the revised scale of pay was issued in favour of the petitioner on 16.04.2018. However, even thereafter, it is only after nearly 20 months that the petitioner had made the application for promotion under the Career Advancement Scheme, that is, on 30.12.2019. It is stated that there is 20 months delay in making the application and the petitioner's involvement in academic duties in research and project work would not justify the said delay. It is submitted that on receipt of application from the petitioner, a letter was sent to the Chancellor of the University to send his nominee for constituting the Selection Committee. However, the nominee was not sent by the Chancellor

¶28

WP(C) NO. 20654 OF 2020

¶29

¶30

presumably due to the situation prevalent in the State due to the Covid-19 pandemic. In the meanwhile, the petitioner retired from service on 31.05.2020. It is submitted that going by the specific provisions of the UGC Regulations, specifically Clause 6.3.9 thereof, the teacher should be on the roll and in active service of the University as on the date of consideration by the Selection Committee. It is submitted that since no Selection Committee could be constituted before the petitioner's date of retirement, the petitioner's claim for placement under the Career Advancement Scheme could not be considered by the University.

¶31

A reply affidavit has also been placed on record by the petitioner producing the application submitted by Dr.Babu Anto P. as well as the order dated 02.06.2020 passed in favour of the said officer. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the said case also, the Career Advancement Scheme promotion was granted 10 years after the date of entitlement and after the date of retirement of the said officer.

¶32

I have considered the contentions advanced on either side. It is not in dispute before me that the petitioner is eligible to be considered for promotion under the Career Advancement Scheme as Professor with effect from 01.10.2009.

¶33

WP(C) NO. 20654 OF 2020

¶34

¶35

The entitlement of the petitioner is not disputed. The contention raised is that pursuant to the application made by the petitioner on 30.12.2019, the University had taken all possible steps for convening the Selection Committee. But the Selection Committee could not be convened before the date of superannuation of the petitioner. It is therefore contended that in view of Clause 6.3.9 of the UGC Regulations, the University is disabled from considering the claim of the petitioner for promotion on a date subsequent to the date of his superannuation. The learned standing counsel for the University would submit that in the case of the officer covered by Ext.P9 order, the Selection Committee had actually met on a date prior to the date of his retirement even though the order was passed only after his retirement.

¶36

I notice that in the case of Ext.P9 order also, the Career Advancement Scheme promotion has been given retrospectively with effect from 01.11.2010. The application submitted by the incumbent is produced as Ext.P8 which is dated 22.11.2019. It appears that a Selection Committee had been convened on 26.03.2020 and the officer was granted promotion as Professor under the Career Advancement Scheme taking note of the very same UGC Regulations. In the instant case also, the application of the petitioner is dated 30.12.2019. The respondents did not deny the claim of the petitioner for anti-dated promotion

¶37

WP(C) NO. 20654 OF 2020

¶38

¶39

under the Career Advancement Scheme. They actually took steps to see that the Selection Committee was duly constituted. However, apparently due to the intervening pandemic, the Selection Committee could not be convened before the petitioner's retirement from service.

¶40

In such a factual situation, I am of the opinion that the contention raised that the petitioner's claim for promotion under the Career Advancement Scheme cannot be considered in view of the fact that he retired from service on 31.05.2020 cannot be countenanced. This is more so in view of the fact that the entitlement is not in dispute and the fact that the petitioner had, as a matter of fact, approached the respondents seeking such promotion before his retirement, that is, on 30.12.2019.

¶41

In the result, I am of the opinion that the rejection of the request made by the petitioner for convening of a Selection Committee and for consideration of his claim for promotion under Career Advancement Scheme, by Ext.P6, is completely untenable. Ext.P6 order is therefore set aside. There will be a direction to the respondents to take appropriate steps to convene the Selection Committee and to consider the claim of the petitioner for promotion as Professor under the Career Advancement Scheme with effect from 01.10.2009. Necessary

¶42

WP(C) NO. 20654 OF 2020

¶43

¶44

shall be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy

¶45

of this judgment.

¶46

This writ petition is ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

ANU SIVARAMAN

JUDGE

WP(C) NO. 20654 OF 2020

¶52

¶53

¶54

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶55

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE BIO-DATA OF THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 30/12/2019 EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 26/2/2020. EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 29/02/2020. EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ADDRESSED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 15/06/2020. EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 25/08/2020

¶56

EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE GOVERNMENT DATED 6/12/2017 CLARIFYING THE POSITION.

¶57

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶58

EXHIBIT R1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.ACAD/ACAD B1/26133/2019 DATED 18.05.2020.

Dr.K.P.Santhosh v. the Kannur University

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.K.P.Santhosh v. the Kannur University

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

Elamaram Yatheem Khana Vs the District Registrar General and Registrar of Societies

Fathima Bind Subair Vs University of Kerala

Pasha Vs the State of Kerala

The Principal, Al -Azar College of Engineering and Technology Vs the State of Kerala

Suhailath N. P. Vs State of Kerala

M.B. Sivadasan Vs the Plantation Corporation of Kerala Ltd.