Disposed

Dr. Bhadrakumari S. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Nov 2022WP(C)/2688/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, favourably recommended for the post of Professor under UGC Regulations 2010, challenged a University letter seeking Government concurrence. The Court held that post creation is automatic under binding regulations and could not be denied, directing the Government to decide Ext.P11 within two months and the University to sanction promotion within one month.

What did the court decide?

The competent Authority of the Government is directed to dispose of Ext.P11 within two months; the University must decide on the petitioner's promotion claim within one month of Government orders.

Dr. Bhadrakumari S. Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 8^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 17TH KARTHIKA,

¶4

¶5

WP(C) NO. 2688 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

DR. BHADRAKUMARI S.
AGED 55 YEARS
W/O. K. MOHANAKUMAR, MUTTATHU HOUSE,
THOTTUMUGHAM P. O., MYNAPPALLY, KOLLAM - 690
519. (WORKING AS PRINCIPAL AND PROFESSOR,
MILADE SHERIEF MEMORIAL COLLEGE, KAYAMKULAM -
690 502, ALAPPUZHA).
BY ADV M.S.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶10

2 THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 033.

¶11

3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, KOLLAM OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, CROSS JUNCTION, KADAPPAKADA, KOLLAM - 691 001.

¶12

4 KERALA UNIVERSITY REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY CAMPUS, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶13

5 THE MANAGER MILADE SHERIEF MEMORIAL COLLEGE, KAYAMKULAM - 690 502.

¶14

BY ADV SHRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM, SC, UNIVERSITY OF
KERALA

¶15

SRI.JOSHY THANNICKKAMATTAM-GP

¶16

W.P (C) No. 2688 of 2022

¶17

..2..

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN HEARD ON
08.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶19

..3..

¶20

W.P (C) No. 2688 of 2022

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

When this writ petition was filed, the petitioner was working as the Principal and Professor in “MSM College” Kayamkulam, and says that he was promoted as an Associate Professor with effect from 05.01.2007.

¶23

The petitioner submits that, even though he was entitled to be sanctioned the post of Professor w.e.f 05.01.2010, as per the Regulations of the University Grants Commission of the year 2010 (‘UGC Regulations, 2010’, for short) and though the University had resolved to grant him the said benefit, no further action was taken by them, since they erroneously were under the impression that this requires the concurrence of the Government. He points out that the University, thus, addressed Ext.P11 letter to the Government, seeking their “remarks” with respect to the sanctioning the post of Professor to eligible teachers in Aided Arts and Science Colleges in terms of

¶24

..4..

¶25

W.P (C) No. 2688 of 2022

¶26

the “UGC Regulations, 2010”, and argued that it was unnecessary and impermissible.

¶27

The petitioner thus prays that Ext.P11, to the extent to which the University has asked the Government’s permission, be found to be unnecessary; and that the consequent Ext.P14 order of the Government be set aside.

¶28

Sri.M.S.Radhakrishnan Nair – learned counsel for

¶29

the petitioner, submitted that, even though a prayer has been sought in this writ petition for quashing Ext.P14, the fact remains that it has no relevance to his client’s case because, Government did not issue the same based on Ext.P11 letter of the University. He submitted that, therefore, his client would be satisfied if this Court directs the Government to consider Ext.P11 and take necessary action thereon, including by sanctioning of the post if so necessary, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶30

Sri.Thomas Abraham – learned Standing Counsel

¶31

..5..

¶32

W.P (C) No. 2688 of 2022

¶33

for the University of Kerala, submitted that his clients have no objection in granting reliefs as sought for by the petitioner in this case but that, since, the Government had not sanctioned the posts of Professor in Aided Colleges - either through direct appointment or by promotion - in consonance with the “UGC Regulations, 2010”, they had no other option but to address them through Ext.P11. He added that his client will abide by any direction to be issued by this Court.

¶34

– 5. Sri.Joshy Thannickamattom learned Government Pleader, submitted that Government has not yet taken a decision on Ext.P11, but that they are willing to do so, provided this Court grants them liberty for such purpose.

¶35

When I consider and evaluate the afore submissions, it is indubitable that, on the “UGC Regulations, 2010” being adopted and implemented by the Universities as per the orders of the Government, the

¶36

..6..

¶37

W.P (C) No. 2688 of 2022

¶38

consequential action of creating posts, so as to enable teachers like the petitioner to be granted their due posts from the relevant date, would also become an automatic corollary.

¶39

That said, I notice that the University has addressed the Government through Ext.P11, being under the impresion that it had not sanctioned the post of Professor as is required under the UGC Regulations, 2010. Obviously, Government will have to now take a decision adverting to the various binding precedents which cover the field and also to the contentions of the petitioner, that creation of post is only an automatic action, which cannot be denied.

¶40

In the afore circumstances, I order this writ petition and direct the competent Authority of the Government to take up Ext.P11 request of the University of Kerala and to dispose of the same, after affording them, as also the petitioner, an opportunity of being heard; thus culminating

¶41

..7..

¶42

W.P (C) No. 2688 of 2022

¶43

in an appropriate order and necessary action thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶44

On the Government issuing proceedings as afore, the University will advert to the same and take a final decision on the claim of the petitioner for being promoted as Professor with effect from 05.01.2010, keeping in mind that the recommendations of the Government are, at the best, only pursuasive and not mandatory as far as they concerned. This shall be done by the University as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than one month from the date on which the Government issues orders in terms of the above directions.

¶45

After dictating this part of the judgment, Sri.M.S.Radhakrishnan Nair – learned counsel for the petitioner, pointed out that, through Ext.P10, Government has already sanctioned posts in the Government Colleges, but do not appear to have done so with respect to Aided

¶46

W.P (C) No. 2688 of 2022

¶47

..8..

¶48

Arts and Science Colleges. He submitted that, therefore, it is incumbent upon them to do so and prayed that this may also be directed to be adverted to by the competent Authority.

¶49

Needless to say, that the impact of Ext.P10, will certainly be adverted to by the competent Authority of the Government and its views specifically reflected in the resultant order.

¶50

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶51

ACR

¶52

..9..

¶53

W.P (C) No. 2688 of 2022

¶54

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2688/2022

¶55

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶56

`Exhibit P1`	`TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED` `12.04.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER` `BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit P2`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER` `NO.4374/2021/UOK DATED 27.08.2021` `ISSUED BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit P3`	`TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED` `27.01.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER` `BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit P4`	`TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE` `SELECTION COMMITTEE OF THE 5TH` `RESPONDENT DATED 22.09.2021.`
`Exhibit P5`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER` `NO.6243/2021/UOK DATED 15.11.2021 OF` `THE FOURTH RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit P6`	`TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION` `SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER DATED` `24.09.2021 BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit P7`	`TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST MADE BY FIFTH` `RESPONDENT NO.MSMT/PRO/2021 DATED` `19.11.2021.`
`Exhibit P8`	`TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF` `GO(P) 58/2010/H.EDN. DATED 27.03.2010.`
`Exhibit P9`	`TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.AC.F` `II/GENERAL/UGC-R 2010/2014 DATED` `18.11.2015 ISSUED BY THE 4TH` `RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit P10`	`TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER` `GO(MS) NO.28/2019/H.EDN. DATED` `11.02.2019.`
`Exhibit P11`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER` `NO.37611/ACFI/2021/UOK DATED` `12.01.2022 ISSUED BY THE 4TH` `RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit P12`	`TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER` `NO.37611/ACF1/2021/UOK DATED 22.1.2022`

¶57

..10..

¶58

W.P (C) No. 2688 of 2022

¶59

	`ISSUED BY`	`THE 4TH RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit P13`	`TRUE COPY` `F3/270/201` `BY THE HIG`	`OF LETTER NO` `8/HEDN DATED 13.5.2022 SENT` `HER EDUCATION (F) DEPARTMENT`
`Exhibit P14`	`TRUE COPY` `HEDN-C3/54` `ISSUED BY`	`OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.` `/2022-HEDN DATED 10/03/2022` `THE 1ST RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit P15`	`TRUE COPY` `UGC SIXTH`	`OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF` `PAY REVISION REGULATION 2010`
`Exhibit P16`	`TRUE COPY` `THE PROSPE` `RESPONDENT`	`OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF` `CTUS ISSUED BY THE 4TH` `FOR THE PERIOD 2021-2022`
`Exhibit P17`	`TRUE COPY` `THE CALEND` `2021-22 MS` `DEPARTMENT` `COLLEGE`	`OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF` `AR ON HAND BOOK FOR THE YEAR` `M COLLEGE IS ALSO SHOWS THAT` `M.SC PHYSICS STARTED IN THE`
`Exhibit P18`	`TRUE COPY` `AC.F.1.2/1` `ISSUED BY`	`OF THE ORDER NO.` `795/91 DATED 05/08/1996` `THE 4TH RESPONDENT`

Dr. Bhadrakumari S. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Bhadrakumari S. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Josy Saimon Vs the Chancellor of the University of Kannur

Ajitha T.A Vs the Additional Director of Coir Development

Chackochan v.a., Vs the Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies

Prof. (Dr) Sunny Kuriakose Vs State of Kerala

The Council of Principals of Colleges in Kerala Vs State of Kerala

Stanly Varghese Vs St.Peters College Trust