Allowed

Dr. Amstrong Sebastian v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC26 Aug 2022WP(C)/8900/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed writ petitions filed by retired and serving Associate Professors challenging the cancellation of their promotions. The High Court set aside the Registrar's order, holding that the University must adhere to UGC Regulations 2010 over Government orders that withdraw prior approvals and directed the Syndicate to reconsider claims.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order bearing No.2845/B5/02/2018/Academic dated 22.03.2018 was set aside. Consequential direction for Syndicate reconsideration.

Dr. Amstrong Sebastian Vs the 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

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 4TH BHADRA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 33249 OF 2019

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

DR P.A. JOSE,
AGED 54 YEARS
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE,
NEWMAN COLLEGE, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT,
PIN - 685 585.

¶7

BY ADVS.
P.J.MATHEW
SRI.EBIN MATHEW

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

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

¶10

2 THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, VIKAS BHAVAN, P.M.G. JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶11

3 THE VICE CHANCELLOR, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM P.O., PIN -686560.

¶12

4 MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM P.O., PIN -686560.

¶13

5 MANAGER, NEWMAN COLLEGE, THODUPUZHA, CORPORATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY,DIOCESE OF KOTHAMANGALAM, BISHOP'S HOUSE, KTHAMANGALAM P.O., PIN - 686 691. BY ADV SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE, SC, M.G. UNIVERSITY SMT.RESMI THOMAS - GP

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
26.08.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).8900/2021, 8923/2021 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

WP(C) NO.33249/2019 & Con.Cases

¶17

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶18

PRESENT

¶19

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶20

FRIDAY, THE 26^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 4TH BHADRA, 1944

¶21

WP(C) NO. 8900 OF 2021

¶22

PETITIONER:

¶23

DR. AMSTRONG SEBASTIAN
AGED 56 YEARS
S/O.SEBASTIAN, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF
ENGLISH, NIRMALA COLLEGE, MUVATTUPUZHA,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 686 661
RESIDING AT KIZHAKKEL HOUSE, KHANNA NAGAR PO,
KORATTI, THRISSUR 680 309.
BY ADVS.
K.P.DANDAPANI (SR.)
SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI
SRI.PREMCHAND R.NAIR

¶24

RESPONDENTS:

¶25

1 THE STATE OF KERALA REP.BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, HIGHER SECONDARY DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.

¶26

2 THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION VIKAS BHAWAN, PMG JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.

¶27

3 THE REGISTRAR MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM P.O., PIN-686 560

¶28

4 MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY REP.BY ITS REGISTRAR, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM P.O., PIN-686 560.

¶29

5 THE MANAGER NIRMALA COLLEGE, MUVATTUPUZHA CORPORATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY, DIOCESE OF KOTHAMANGALAM, BISHOP'S HOUSE, KOTHAMANGALAM P.O, PIN-686 691.

¶30

BY ADV SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE, SC, M.G. UNIVERSITY
SMT.RESMI THOMAS - GP

¶31

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 26.08.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).33249/2019 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶32

WP(C) NO.33249/2019 & Con.Cases

¶33

¶34

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶35

PRESENT

¶36

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶37

FRIDAY, THE 26^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 4TH BHADRA, 1944

¶38

WP(C) NO. 8923 OF 2021

¶39

PETITIONER:

¶40

DR.NELSON RODRIGUES
AGED 55 YEARS
S/O SELSY RODRIGUES PRINCIPAL IN-CHARGE, ST.
ALBERT’S COLLEGE, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 031,
RESIDING AT NIC-CELIA DALE, NEAR GOVT. HOSPITAL,
NARAKKAL P.O., KOCHI-682 505.
BY ADVS.
K.P.DANDAPANI (SR.)
SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI
SRI.PREMCHAND R.NAIR

¶41

RESPONDENTS:

¶42

1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2 THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE DUCATION VIKAS BHAWAN, PMG JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 3 THE REGISTRAR MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM P.O., PIN-686 560. 4 MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM P.O.- 686 560. 5 THE MANAGER ST.ALBERT’S COLLEGE, ERNAKULAM, CORPORATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY, ARCHIDIOCESE OF VERAPOLY, MARINE DRIVE, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 031. BY ADVS. SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE, SC, M.G. UNIVERSITY SHERRY J. THOMAS LIGISH XAVIER SMT.RESMI THOMAS - GP

¶43

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 26.08.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).33249/2019 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶44

¶45

WP(C) NO.33249/2019 & Con.Cases

¶46

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶47

PRESENT

¶48

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶49

FRIDAY, THE 26^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 4TH BHADRA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 25094 OF 2021

¶50

PETITIONER:

¶51

DR. JOE JACOB,

¶52

AGED 56 YEARS

¶53

S/O. T.S. CHACKO, THUDIANPLACKAL HOUSE, THODUPUZHA
P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT-685584 (RETIRED ASSOCIATE
PROFESSOR OF PHYSICS, NEWMAN COLLEGE, THODUPUZHA).
BY ADV M.S.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR

¶54

RESPONDENTS:

¶55

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶56

2 THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶57

3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, HOSPITAL ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682011.

¶58

4 MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, PRIYADARSINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM-686560.

¶59

5 THE MANAGER, NEWMAN COLLEGE, THODUPUZHA, CORPORATE EDUCATION AGENCY, DIOCESE OF KOTHAMANGALAM, BISHOPS HOUSE, KOTHAMANGALAM P.O., PIN-686691.

¶60

BY ADVS.

¶61

BABY ISSAC ILLICKAL

¶62

ISAAC KURUVILLA ILLIKAL

¶63

SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE – SC

¶64

SMT.RESMITHOMAS - GP

¶65

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 26.08.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).33249/2019 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶66

WP(C) NO.33249/2019 & Con.Cases

¶67

¶68

JUDGMENT

¶69

The petitioners in these cases are either working as Associate Professors, or have retired from such position, from different colleges affiliated to the Mahatma Gandhi University (M.G.University).

¶70

The issue raised in these writ petitions is common; and I, therefore, propose to dispose them of through this judgment jointly.

¶71

I find that most of the facts involved in these cases are not in dispute, though there are some legal issues impelled by the parties.

¶72

Compendiously, the Professors, while working as Associate Professors, were granted promotion under the Career Advancement Scheme, as per the applicable Regulations of the University Grants Commission (UGC Regulations) of the year 2010. They say that this is evident from the order of the University, bearing No.UQ No.6589/B/Acad., dated 04.11.2017 - a copy of which has been produced as Ext.P17 along with W.P.(C).No.33249 of 2019.

¶73

The petitioners allege that, however, subsequently, the Registrar of University issued another order, bearing No.2845/B5/02/2018/Academic dated 22.03.2018, cancelling their promotions, a copy of the same is on record as Ext.P9 in W.P.

¶74

WP(C) NO.33249/2019 & Con.Cases

¶75

¶76

(C).No.33249 of 2019. They contend that this order has been issued by the Registrar of University in blatant disregard to the applicable processes under the Mahatma Gandhi University Act, 1985, its First Statues and Ordinances, and therefore, that it is liable to be set aside by this Court.

¶77

I have heard Sri.M.S.Radhakrishnan Nair, Sri.Ebin Mathew and Sri.Millu Dandapani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in these matters; Sri.Surin George Ipe - learned Standing Counsel for the M.G.University; Sri.Sherry J.Thomas - learned counsel for the 5^th respondent in W.P.(C).No.8923 and Smt.Resmi Thomas - learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents for these matters.

¶78

The learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that the impugned order of the University, dated 22.03.2018, is in flagrant disregard to the provisions of the "UGC Regulations" since, as per clause 6.1.13 thereof, their clients ought to have been granted promotions, notwithstanding any directive of the Government to the contrary. They explain that, even though the University acceded to their client's request for promotion through order dated 04.11.2017, it has been cancelled through order dated 22.03.2018, solely, because the Government order mentioned in the former proceedings

¶79

¶80

WP(C) NO.33249/2019 & Con.Cases

¶81

was withdrawn subsequently. They urged that law has now been well settled, through various binding precedents, that University is not bound by orders of the Government, but have to act as per the Act, Statues, Ordinances and the applicable “UGC Regulations”. They asserted that the Government Order has, therefore, no relevance at all, when the "UGC Regulations" mandated that their clients be promoted, as had been originally done correctly by the University, through order dated 04.11.2017. They thus prayed that the impugned order of the University, namely the one dated 22.02.2018, be set aside.

¶82

Sri.Surin George Ipe - learned Standing Counsel for the M.G.University, on the other hand, submitted that, as is evident from his client's order dated 04.11.2017, promotions to the petitioners were offered on the strength of the Government order 13.10.2017. He submitted that, however, Government withdrew this order, through subsequent orders dated 08.02.2018 and 15.02.2018; and therefore, that the matter was referred to the Standing Committee of the Syndicate of the University, which took a decision to withdraw the earlier order dated 04.11.2017. He pointed out that the University has only communicated the said factum to the petitioners, through order 22.03.2018; and consequently, that there is no point in

¶83

WP(C) NO.33249/2019 & Con.Cases

¶84

¶85

them assailing the same, when the withdrawal of the Government Orders mandated such an action.

¶86

Smt.Resmi Thomas, learned Government Pleader,

¶87

submitted that the impugned order of the University is irreproachable since it has correctly refused the grant of permission to the petitioner because the Government issued orders subsequently withdrawing the earlier ones. She explained that the Government is the final pay master and therefore, that the posts are to the properly identified under the applicable "UGC Regulations". She concluded her submissions saying that even though Government had issued the order in the year 2017, it was then decided to be withdrawn subsequently in the year 2018 before the post had been sanctioned; and hence, that the University could not have granted promotions to the petitioners, though they had taken a decision earlier and thus prayed that these writ petitions be dismissed.

¶88

I have considered and evaluated the afore submissions on the touchstone of the various materials available on record.

¶89

It is indubitable - as is admitted - that the University issued its first order on 04.11.2017; and granted promotions to the petitioners, though saying therein that they were doing so in terms of the them extant order of the Government dated 13.10.2017.

¶90

¶91

WP(C) NO.33249/2019 & Con.Cases

¶92

However, the University's order reflects luculently that they were also acting under the “UGC Regulations”.

¶93

That said, it transpires that Government withdrew the order dated 13.10.2017 and issued two other orders on 08.02.2018 and 15.02.2018, which then spurred the University to place the matter before the Standing Committee of its Syndicate, which is stated to have taken a decision on 05.03.2018, to the effect that promotions of the petitioners cannot be given to them, even though the University had earlier taken a decision to do so, through order dated 04.11.2017.

¶94

It is thus evident that though the petitioners were offered promotion by the University through order dated 04.11.2017, it was never given to them; and that it then issued order dated 22.03.2018, communicating to them why such benefits have been denied.

¶95

Thus, the crucial question in this case is whether the proceedings of the University, dated 22.3.2018, can find favour in law.

¶96

I must say upfront that the afore said order does not find approval with me for the reasons that I will state presently.

¶97

The impugned order of the University dated 22.3.2018, has been issued by the Registrar recording the decision of the Standing

¶98

¶99

WP(C) NO.33249/2019 & Con.Cases

¶100

Committee of its Syndicate. It is without doubt that any decision regarding promotion of the petitioners could have been taken only by the Syndicate of the University.

¶101

However, the impugned order says that proposal of the University, to grant promotion to the petitioners, was placed before the Standing Committee of the Syndicate, which, however, took a decision on 05.03.2018, not to extend it to them solely because the earlier Government Order had been subsequently withdrawn.

¶102

Pertinently, there is nothing to show that the Syndicate had reflected upon the afore said decision of its Standing Committee; and I, therefore, fail to understand how the Registrar could have communicated such decision to the petitioners, as has been done through order dated 22.03.2018.

¶103

On this short ground alone, this Court cannot find the order of the Registrar to be as per law.

¶104

That apart, as rightly argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the University is to act not slavishly under the dictates of the Government, but based on the prescriptions of the applicable Act, First Statutes, Ordinances, and most of all, under the “UGC Regulations”.

¶105

As I have said above, the first order of the University, dated

¶106

¶107

WP(C) NO.33249/2019 & Con.Cases

¶108

04.11.2017, certainly relied on the earlier order of the Government dated 13.10.2017; but records clearly therein that the promotions, as proposed, were being offered to the petitioners, under the mandate of the “UGC Regulations” also. The provisions of Clause 6.1.13 of the said Regulations are vital and obviously, the University was also aware of this, when the said order was issued.

¶109

However, merely because the Government withdrew their order dated 13.10.2017, the University decided not to implement their earlier proposal to grant promotion to the petitioners, which has been recorded by the Registrar in the impugned proceedings dated 22.3.2018. This order certainly cannot be granted imprimatur because, the Standing Committee of the Syndicate merely went by the fact that Government had withdrawn its earlier order, but without even considering whether the promotions to the petitioners were mandated or warranted under the “UGC Regulations”.

¶110

To paraphrase, even if the Government passes a contrary order, law is now well settled that the provisions of the “UGC Regulations” would certainly have a overriding effect; and hence, the action of the Registrar, in having issued the order dated 22.3.2018 without considering this aspect and without placing the matter before the Syndicate, certainly has to be found incorrect and untenable.

¶111

WP(C) NO.33249/2019 & Con.Cases

¶112

¶113

In the afore circumstances, I order these writ petitions and set aside the impugned order of the Registrar bearing No.2845/B 5/02/2018/Academic dated 22.03.2018; with a consequential direction to the Syndicate of the University to reconsider the claims of the petitioners for promotion, adverting to its earlier order dated 04.11.2017, as also the “UGC Regulations, 2010”, and after affording them an opportunity of being heard; thus culminating in an appropriate proceeding and order as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶114

It goes without saying that while the afore exercise is completed, the Syndicate of the University will specifically keep in mind the rigour and requirements of the applicable “UGC Regulations” and will not act solely on the basis of the Government Orders.

¶115

Even though I have recorded my afore observations, I leave it to the Syndicate to decide the entitlement of the petitioners to promotion, clarifying that I have not spoken about it affirmatively.

¶116

That being so said, it does not require this Court to say specifically, but once the decision as afore is taken by the Syndicate, the case of each petitioner will be decided depending upon the post

¶117

WP(C) NO.33249/2019 & Con.Cases

¶118

¶119

identified and their entitlement; and consequent orders will be issued to them as per law.

¶120

After I dictated this part of the judgment, Sri.M.S.Radhakrishnan Nair – learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P(C)No.25094 of 2021, submitted that his client has retired from service hence it may also be clarified that, depending upon the decision to be taken through the afore exercise, his client’s retiral benefits will also stand modulated.

¶121

Needless to say, if, through the afore exercise, the petitioner in W.P(C)No.25094 of 2021 is found entitled to the promotion as Professor from the relevant date, same shall be reckoned for the purpose of his retiral benefits, which shall be done by the competent Authorities without fail.

¶122

Sd/-DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶123

JUDGE

¶124

raj/MC

¶125

WP(C) NO.33249/2019 & Con.Cases

¶126

¶127

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 33249/2019

¶128

`PETITIO` `EXHIBIT`	`NER EXHIBITS` `P1`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `20-01-1994 ISSUED`	`APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED` `BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P2`	`ORDER DATED 20-12` `RESPONDENT UNIVER`	`-1995 OF THE 4TH` `SITY.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P3`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `ISSUED BY THE 4TH`	`ORDER DATED 08-11-2001` `RESPONDENT.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P4`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `RESPONDENT DATED`	`ORDER ISSUED BY THE 4TH` `26-12-2006 .`
`EXHIBIT`	`P5`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `THE 5TH RESPONDEN`	`ORDER DATED 20-01-2004 OF` `T.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P6`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `ISSUED BY THE 5TH`	`ORDER DATED 02-06-2008` `RESPONDENT.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P7`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `22-08-2017 ISSUED`	`APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED` `BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P8`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `11-2017 SENT BY T` `COLLEGE TO THE 4T`	`COVERING LETTER DATED 03-` `HE PRINCIPAL NEWMAN` `H RESPONDENT.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P9`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `RESPONDENT DATED`	`ORDER OF THE 4TH` `22-03-32018.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P10`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `2010.`	`PAY FIXATION DATED 19-04-`
`EXHIBIT`	`P11`	`RELEVANT PORTION` `REGULATION G.O. (` `DATED 27-03-2010.`	`OF THE UGC PAY REVISION` `P) NO. 58/2010/H.EDN`
`EXHIBIT`	`P12`	`TRUE COPY OF G.O.` `DATED 13-10-2017.`	`(RT) NO. 1867/2017/H.EDN`
`EXHIBIT`	`P12(A)`	`LEGIBILE COPY OF`	`EXHIBIT P12.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P13`	`COPY OF GOVERNMEN` `256/2018/H.EDN DA`	`T ORDER G.O. (RT) NO.` `TED 08-02-2018.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P14`	`COPY OF GOVERNMEN` `290/2018/H.EDN DA`	`T ORDER G.O. (RT) NO.` `TED 15-02-2018.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P15`	`COPY OF GOVERNMEN` `28/2019/H.EDN DAT`	`T ORDER G.O. (MS) NO.` `ED 11-02-2019.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P16`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `BY THE PETITIONER` `DATED 04-10-2019.`	`REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED` `TO THE VICE CHANCELLOR`
`EXHIBIT`	`P17`	`TRUE COPY OF THE`	`ORDER DATED 04-11-2017.`

¶129

WP(C) NO.33249/2019 & Con.Cases

¶130

¶131

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8900/2021

¶132

`PETITIO` `EXHIBIT`	`NER EXHIBITS` `P1`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `19.1.2019 ISSUED` `THE PETITIONER`	`PROMOTION ORDER DATED` `BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO`
`EXHIBIT`	`P2`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `PRINCIPAL TO THE` `19.1.2019 ALONG W` `STATEMENT, UNDERT`	`PROPOSAL FORWARDED BY THE` `4TH RESPONDENT DATED` `ITH PAY FIXATION` `AKING AND SELF-APPRAISAL.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P3`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `THE PETITIONER DA` `MAHATMA GANDHI AD`	`APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY` `TED 22.2.2019 BEFORE` `ALAT 2019.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P4`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `UGC PAY REVISION` `NO.58/2010/HEDN D` `THE 1ST RESPONDEN`	`RELEVANT PORTION OF THE` `REGULATION G.O.(P)` `ATED 27.3.2010 ISSUED BY` `T.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P5`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `NO.1867/2017/HEDN` `BY THE HIGHER EDU`	`GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O.(RT)` `DATED 13.10.2017 ISSUED` `CATION (F) DEPARTMENT.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P5 (A)`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `NO.6589/BV/ACAD D` `THE 4TH RESPONDEN`	`UNIVERSITY ORDER` `ATED 4.11.2017 ISSUED BY` `T.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P6`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `NO.256/2018/HEDN` `THE HIGHER EDUCAT`	`GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O.(RT)` `DATED 8.2.2018 ISSUED BY` `ION DEPT.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P7`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `NO.290/2018/HEDN` `THE HIGHER EDUCAT`	`GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O.(RT)` `DATED 15.2.2018 ISSUED BY` `ION (F) DEPARTMENT.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P8`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `NO.28/2019/H EDN` `THE 1ST RESPONDEN`	`GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O.(MS)` `DATED 11.2.2019 ISSUED BY` `T.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P9`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `NO.238/2019/MGU D` `24.1.2019 ISSUED`	`UNIVERSITY ORDER` `ATED ADMINISTRATION DATED` `BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P10`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `B5/2019/MGU DATED` `4TH RESPONDENT.`	`ORDER NO.1192/AC` `26.3.2019 ISSUED BY THE`
`EXHIBIT`	`P11`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `DATED 27.5.2020 I` `RESPONDENT.`	`G.O.(RT) NO.676/2020` `SSUED BY THE 1ST`

¶133

WP(C) NO.33249/2019 & Con.Cases

¶134

¶135

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8923/2021

¶136

`PETITIO`	`NER EXHIB`	`ITS`
`EXHIBIT`	`P1`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.TS/M/3/89 DATED` `4.12.1989 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO` `THE PETITIONER.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P2`	`TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED` `18.7.1990 NUMBERED TS/M/8/90 ISSUED BY THE` `5TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P3`	`TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED` `6.7.2001 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT` `APPOINTING THE PETITIONER AS A LECTURER` `SENIOR GRADE.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P4`	`TRUE COPY OF THE PROBATION DECLARATION` `CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT` `TO THE PETITIONER ON 25.3.1991.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P5`	`TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION` `NO.EA1/29/96/S DATED 19.3.1998 ISSUED BY` `THE COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND` `TECHNOLOGY.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P6`	`TRUE COPY OF THE DEGREE CERTIFICATE OF` `DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY ISSUED BY COCHIN` `UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY TO` `THE PETITIONER DATED 20.5.1998.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P7`	`TRUE COPY OF THE FORM OF OPTION DATED` `24.4.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER AND` `STATEMENT OF FIXATION OF PAY UNDER THE` `REVISED UGC SCHEME APPROVED BY THE 5TH` `RESPONDENT.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P8`	`TRUE COPY OF THE PROMOTION ORDER FORM NO.6` `DATED 6.12.2017 ISSUED BY THE 5TH` `RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P9`	`TRUE COPY OF THE PROPOSAL FOR PROMOTION` `NO.SACA/17/PRIN/MGU/798 DATED 6.12.2017` `ISSUED TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT BY THE` `PRINCIPAL, ST. ALBERT'S COLLEGE.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P10`	`TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER` `NO.SACA/M/P/01/2020 DATED 1.4.2020 ISSUED` `BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P11`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER` `NO.2363/ACB2/2020/MGU DATED 8.6.2020` `ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P12`	`TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE` `UGC PAY REVISION REGULATION, G.O.(P)` `NO.58/2010/HEDN DATED 27.3.2010 ISSUED BY`

¶137

¶138

WP(C) NO.33249/2019 & Con.Cases

¶139

	`THE IST RESPONDEN`	`T.`
`EXHIBIT P13`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `(RT)NO.1867/2017` `ISSUED BY THE IST`	`GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O.` `HEDN DATED 13.10.2017` `RESPONDENT.`
`EXHIBIT P13(A)`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `NO:6589/BV/ACAD D` `THE 4TH RESPONDEN`	`UNIVERSITY ORDER` `ATED 4.11.2017 ISSUED BY` `T.`
`EXHIBIT P14`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `NO.256/2018/HEDN` `THE HIGHER EDUCAT`	`GOVERNEMNT ORDER G.O.(RT)` `DATED 8.2.2018 ISSUED BY` `ION DEPT.`
`EXHIBIT P15`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `(RT)NO.290/2018/H`	`GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O.` `EDN DATED 15.2.2018.`
`EXHIBIT P16`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `(MS) NO.28/2019/H` `ISSUED BY THE IST`	`GOVERNMENT ORDER NO.G.O.` `EDN DATED 11.2.2019` `RESPONDENT.`
`EXHIBIT P17`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `NO:238/2019/MGU A` `24.1.2019 ISSUED`	`UNIVERSITY ORDER` `DMINISTRATION DATED` `BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.`
`EXHIBIT P18`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `5/2019/MGU DATED` `4TH RESPONDENT.`	`ORDER NO.1192/AC B` `26.3.2019 ISSUED BY THE`
`EXHIBIT P19`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `27.5.2020 ISSUED`	`G.O.(RT)NO.676/2020 DATED` `BY THE IST RESPONDENT.`

¶140

WP(C) NO.33249/2019 & Con.Cases

¶141

¶142

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25094/2021

¶143

`PETITION`	`ER EXHIB`	`ITS`
`Exhibit`	`P1`	`TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER NO.` `CEK/HE/25A/2011 DATED 15/10/2020 ISSUED BY` `THE 5TH RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit`	`P2`	`TRUE COPY OF THE PROPOSAL NO. 1/21 DATED` `08/04/2021 ISSUED BY THE PRINCIPAL, NEWMAN` `COLLEGE, THODUPUZHA ALONG WITH ENGLISH` `TRANSLATION.`
`Exhibit`	`P3`	`TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED` `08/04/2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER` `BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit`	`P4`	`TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. D1-22997/2021` `DATED 28/09/2021 REJECTING THE CLAIM OF` `PETITIONER ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION.`
`Exhibit`	`P5`	`TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF GO(P)` `NO. 58/2010/H.EDN. DATED 27/03/2010 ISSUED` `BY THE HIGHER EDUCATION (C) DEPARTMENT.`
`Exhibit`	`P6`	`TRUE COPY OF THE UNIVERSITY ORDER NO.` `238/2019/MGU-ADMINISTRATION DATED` `24/01/2019 ISSUED BY 4TH RESPONDENT ALONG` `WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION.`
`Exhibit`	`P7`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.1192/ACB-` `5/2019/MGU DATED 26/03/2019 ISSUED BY 4TH` `RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION.`
`Exhibit`	`P8`	`TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT) NO.` `676/2020/H.EDN. DATED 27/05/2020 ISSUED BY` `THE HIGHER EDUCATION (C) DEPARTMENT ALONG` `WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION.`
`Exhibit`	`P9`	`TRUE COPY OF GO(RT) NO.1867/2017/H.EDN.` `DATED 13/10/2017 ISSUED BY THE 1ST` `RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit`	`P9(A)`	`TRUE COPY OF UNIVERSITY ORDER NO.` `6589/BV/ACAD DATED 04/11/2017 ISSUED BY` `ACADEMIC B.V. SECTION.`
`Exhibit`	`P10`	`TRUE COPY OF GO(RT) NO. 256/2018/H,EDN.` `DATED 08/02/2018 ISSUED BY THE HIGHER` `EDUCATION DEPARTMENT.`
`Exhibit`	`P11`	`TRUE COPY OF GO(RT) NO. 290/2018/H.EDN.` `DATED 15/02/2018 ISSUED BY THE HIGHER` `EDUCATION DEPARTMENT.`
`Exhibit`	`P12`	`TRUE COPY OF GO(RT) NO. 28/2019/H.EDN.` `DATED 11/02/2019 ISSUED BY THE HIGHER` `EDUCATION DEPARTMENT.`

¶144

WP(C) NO.33249/2019 & Con.Cases

¶145

19

¶146

Exhibit P13TRUE COPY OF THE UNIVERSITY ORDER NO.
6589/BV/ACAD DATED 04/11/2017 ISSUED BY
ACADEMIC B.V. SECTION.
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT R3(A)TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
NO.7086/B5/2018/ACADEMIC DATED 01.10.2018.
EXHIBIT R3(B)TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 18.09.2019.
EXHIBIT R3(C)TRUE COPY OF FIXATION STATEMENT
EXHIBIT R3(D)TRUE COPY OF G.O(P)NO.9/2021/H.EDN DATED
20.02.2021.

Dr. Amstrong Sebastian v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Amstrong Sebastian v. the 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

Joyichen.K Vs the Joint Registrar (General) of Co-Operative Societies

Shajan M.S. Vs the State of Kerala

Jameela Vidana Vs Dr. Thomas Mathew

Anil U S Vs Kerala Agricultural University

Sundaresan.D (Retired Driver) Vs Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

Jaisal C.P., Vs State of Kerala