Allowed

Sebastian Dominic v. K. Harris

Supreme Court30 Nov 20232023 INSC 10412023 INSC 1041

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal by a retired Reference Assistant regarding rejection of distance education qualifications for past promotion. The Court dismissed the appeal, decided to leave the validity of the degrees open, and ordered that the already granted retirement benefits remain undisturbed.

What did the court decide?

The appeals are disposed of leaving the question of law open without disturbing the promotion and retirement benefits already granted to the appellant.

What the court decided

Sebastian Dominic versus K. Harris — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Supreme Court (2023)

¶1

NON-REPORTABLE

¶2

2023 INSC 1041

¶3

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2023 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos.26867-68 OF 2019)

¶6

SEBASTIAN DOMINIC … Appellant(s)

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

K.HARRIS & OTHERS ETC. … Respondent(s)

¶9

J U D G M E N T

¶10

RAJESH BINDAL, J.

¶11

Leave granted.

¶12

The appellant herein was working as Reference Assistant in

¶13

the University¹ . He was promoted to the post of Assistant Librarian vide

¶14

order dated 06.04.2010 w.e.f. 23.07.2008 as he had requisite qualifications, i.e., MLISC² and M.Phil in Library Science from VMU³ .

¶15

M.Phil degree was obtained by him in December 2007. A decision was

¶16

taken by the Academic Council of the University on 03.04.2013 holding

¶17

that the degrees acquired through Distance Education from VMU

¶18

Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by cannot be considered for promotion under University Grants SONIA BHASIN Date: 2023.12.01 18:31:29 IST Reason:

¶19

1 Kerala Agricultural University

¶20

2 Masters Degree of Library & Information Sciences

¶21

3 Vinayak Missions University

¶22

¶23

Commission Scheme. The Executive Council endorsed the decision of the Academic Council on 14.08.2014. The action was sought to be taken against the appellant as he had been granted promotion on the basis of his qualification of M.Phil from VMU, on a complaint made by respondent No. 1. Two Writ Petitions were filed in the High Court—first by the appellant-Sebastian Dominic seeking quashing of the decisions taken by the Academic Council and the Executive Council refusing to accept the degrees awarded by VMU through Distance Education and second by K. Harris challenging promotion of Sebastian Dominic and Sherly B to the post of Assistant Librarian. Further prayer was made for grant of promotion to him with retrospective effect from 24.06.2008. The Single Judge of the High Court⁴ opined that the action was taken by the Academic Council in view of the complaint made by K. Harris regarding validity of M.Phil degree of the appellant. Despite the decisions of the Academic Council and the Executive Council, the matter was still kept pending and consequential orders were not being passed. Direction was issued for passing the appropriate order within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order. The writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed. The Division Bench

¶24

4 High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam

¶25

¶26

of the High Court in a challenge to the common order passed by the

¶27

Single Bench upheld the same.

¶28

3. Learned counsels for the parties have addressed arguments

¶29

on a legal issue that M.Phil degree obtained by the appellant from VMU was not valid and therefore, he was ineligible for grant of promotion to the post of Assistant Librarian from the date he acquired that qualification. However, considering the fact that the appellant was granted promotion with effect from 23.07.2008 and continued working till he retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.01.2018, in our opinion, the present appeals can be disposed of while leaving the question of law open but not disturbing the promotion already given to the appellant as he has already retired from service

¶30

more than five years back. Ordered accordingly. Whatever benefits

¶31

have been granted to him shall not be disturbed.

¶32

…..……………..J (VIKRAM NATH)

¶33

…………………..J (RAJESH BINDAL)

¶34

New Delhi November 30, 2023.

¶35

Sebastian Dominic v. K. Harris

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Sebastian Dominic v. K. Harris

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

Jaffar Ali Nawab Ali Chaudhari versus the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Sabir Hussain (Dead) Thr. Lrs. versus Syed Mohammad Hassan (Dead) Th. Lrs

M/S. Multicon Builders versus Sumandevi

Bani Amrit Kaur versus State of Haryana .

Selvaraj versus Revathi

Prafful Shukla . versus Government of Madhya Pradesh