Madras High Court
V.G.Darsana vs The Director Of Collegiate Education on 28 November, 2017
Author: R.Suresh Kumar
Bench: R.Suresh Kumar
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 28.11.2017
ORDER RESERVED ON : 13.02.2017
ORDER DELIVERED ON: 28.11.2017
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
W.P.(MD).No.8232 of 2010
and M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2010
V.G.Darsana .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Director of Collegiate Education,
College Road, Chennai-600 006.
2. The Joint Director of Collegiate Education,
Tirunelveli Region,
1st Floor, Sahuntala Shopping Complex,
Thiruvanathapuram Road,
Tirunelveli-627 003.
3. The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious And Charitable Endowments Department,
Nungampakkam, Chennai-600 034.
4. The Secretary,
Sri Devi Kumari Women College,
Kuzhithurai Post, Kanyakumari District.
5. Dr.C.Sreekumari
(Impleaded as per order
dated 04.04.2013 in M.P.No.1 of 2012) ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to
absorb the petitioner as Zoology Lecturer in the 4th respondent's college in
the regular time scale of pay and regularize the services of the petitioner
from the date of appointment i.e.,27.01.2006.
!For Petitioner : Mr.M.Saravanakumar
^For R1 to R3 : Mr.V.Muruganantham, AGP
For R4 : Mr. H.Thayumanaswamy
For R5 : Mr. N.S.Ramakrishnadass
:ORDER
The prayer sought for in this writ petition is for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to absorb the petitioner as Zoology Lecturer in the 4th respondent's college in the regular time scale of pay and regularize the services of the petitioner from the date of appointment i.e.,27.01.2006.
2. The necessary facts which are required to be noticed for the disposal of this writ petition are as follows:
(i) The petitioner claimed that he is the University Rank Holder in UG course of B.Sc (Zoology), which she completed in the year 2001 and M.Sc.
Degree in Zoology in the year 2003 and also completed M.Phil degree in the year 2004 in First Class. Accordingly, she claimed that she is fully qualified to be appointed as Lecturer in the 4th respondent college in Zoology subject.
(ii) The petitioner further claimed that with the said qualification, the petitioner had been engaged as Lecturer at the 4th respondent college in the month of August 2004, however, without salary. Thereafter, the 4th respondent issued an advertisement, dated 24.1.2006 published in the newspaper inviting applications from the eligible candidates for selection and appointment to the post of Lecturers at the 4th respondent college. Out of which, one post was earmarked for the subject Zoology.
(iii) Pursuant to the said invitation of application, the petitioner had applied to the 4th respondent college and after interview, the selection committee selected the petitioner and appointed as Lecturer in Zoology subject at the 4th respondent college. Accordingly, the petitioner had been continuously working as Lecturer in Zoology, of course on consolidated pay from 09.3.2006.
(iv) While so, in the year 2010, the petitioner came to know that the post of Lecturer in Zoology subject with time scale of pay became vacant at the 4th respondent college and therefore, inorder to absorb the petitioner in the said post with the time scale of pay at the 4th respondent college, the petitioner had given a representation on 20.4.2010. Since the petitioner, had been working from 2004 onwards and with the consolidated pay, after due selection and appointment, atleast from 09.3.2006, and the petitioner claimed to have the qualification to hold the post of Lecturer for the subject Zoology at the 4th respondent college, she made such request to absorb her in the post, which was lying vacant at the 4th respondent college. Since the said request of the petitioner was not considered and time and again, i.e., at the end of every academic year, since the petitioner has been ousted from the service and after summer holidays, she would be re-appointed on consolidated pay, the petitioner inorder to get a permanent appointment, by absorbing her candidature in the vacant post of Lecturer for the subject Zoology at the 4th respondent college, she has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition with the aforesaid prayer.
3. When the above writ petition filed and was pending before this Court, it seems that, a lot of subsequent events, had happened. The 5th respondent herein, also, claiming in the similar line as made by the petitioner, had filed an impleading petition. Accordingly, she was impleaded as 5th respondent by orders of this Court dated 4.4.2013.
4. According to the 5th respondent, she is a qualified candidate with a qualification of B.Sc Zoology, M.Sc Zoology and M.Phil Zoology and also Ph.D degree.
5. With that qualification, the 5th respondent claimed that she was appointed as temporary Lecturer in the department of Zoology on consolidated pay. Accordingly, she discharged duties as Lecturer from 13.10.2007 to 11.10.2010. Thereafter, she was selected and appointed as Lecturer under Faculty Development Programme (FDP) by the 5th respondent's proceedings dated 06.03.2010. Accordingly, the 5th respondent claimed that she joined duty on 12.03.2010 and she was allowed to continue in the said post till 08.03.2012 and from 09.3.2012, she was not allowed to sign the attendance register.
6. It is further claimed by the 5th respondent that, she made an application on 05.03.2012 to the 5th respondent to consider her candidature for the existing consolidated pay vacancy, there was no response from the 4th respondent college and she also came to know that the 4th respondent has accommodated the writ petitioner, who does not have any prescribed qualification and in order to permanently absorb the writ petitioner only, the request of the 5th respondent was not considered by the 4th respondent. Therefore, she claimed to be a necessary party to be heard in this writ petition. Accordingly, she filed an affidavit in support of the impleading petition and therefore, she was impleaded as one of the respondents.
7. The 4th respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that, the petitioner was not working from 2004 without salary as she claimed, however, the petitioner was working as Lecturer at the 4th respondent college in Zoology department from 09.3.2006 on temporary basis in a consolidated pay of Rs.3000/- per month payable from Devaswoms funds. The writ petitioner was given that appointment based on the qualification prescribed by the UGC at that time.
8. The counter of the 4th respondent would further state that, the petitioner was not working regularly and continuously because she was relieved from her services on every summer vacation and is not having 5 years continuous service as alleged by her.
9. It is further stated in the counter that, since the petitioner is not eligible to hold the post of Lecturer in Zoology subject that too in the approved post, she was not considered for appointment and absorption. She can never be a permanent employee / Lecturer at the 4th respondent college as she does not have the minimum qualification as per the UGC norms.
10. The counter would further state that, atleast from 21.08.2013, the petitioner is not working at 4th respondent college because she was not permitted to work as the petitioner was doing regular PH.D course.
11. I have heard Mr.M.Saravanakumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. H.Thayumanaswamy, the learned counsel for the 4th respondent, Mr. N.S.Ramakrishnadass, the learned counsel for the 5th respondent and Mr.V.Muruganantham, learned Additional Government Pleader for official respondents.
12. At the time of filing this writ petition in the year 2010, the only grievance of the petitioner was that she should be absorbed in a regular vacancy for the post of Lecturer in Zoology subject at the 4th respondent college, for which, according to the petitioner, she would be eligible, since she was having the required qualification of UG degree and PG degree as well as M.Phil degree in the relevant subject which are necessary and essential qualification to hold the post of Lecturer for handling UG level classes, as per the then prevailing norms of the University Grants Commission, i.e., UGC.
13. Thereafter, number of events seem to have taken place, where, since the petitioner was not qualified with Ph.D and the UGC norms was brought in the year 2009, the petitioner thought of qualifying herself with Ph.D degree. Accordingly, it seems that the petitioner had registered for full time Ph.D course. The said issue triggered the 4th respondent Management and accordingly, the 4th respondent by order dated 21.8.2013 ousted the petitioner from service on the ground that the petitioner had registered to undergo Ph.D course on regular basis. However, the said ousting order had been challenged by the petitioner in W.P.(MD).No. 17767 of 2013, wherein this Court by final order dated 09.1.2014 quashed the said ousting order and the relevant portion of the order of this court dated 09.1.2014 reads thus:
?2. A perusal of the impugned order would go to show that admittedly no notice was given to the petitioner before issuing the impugned order. It is not in dispute that the order impugned has civil consequence.
3. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent is that the petitioner is under consolidated employment. Therefore, the order impugned cannot be set aside.
4. Even assuming that the petitioner is under consolidated employment, the order impugned has civil consequences. As the petitioner has not been served with notice before passing the impugned order, the said order has to be set aside for violation of principles of natural justice.
5. Accordingly, the order impugned passed by the 5th respondent in Na.Ka.No.410/SDKVC/2013 dated 21.08.2013 is set aside. However, liberty is given to the fifth respondent to proceed in the manner known to law. This writ petition is disposed of on the above terms. Consequently, connected M.P(md).No.1 of 2013 is closed. No costs.?
14. Subsequently, the petitioner rejoined the duty at the 4th respondent college and also obtained no objection from the 4th respondent to register for Ph.D (part time) The necessary NOC issued by the 4th respondent in this regard, dated 21.8.2015 reads thus:
NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE ?Tmty.V.G.Dharsana, has been appointed as Assistant Professor in Zoology (Consolidated Pay) only for the academic year 2015-2016 purely on temporary basis without claiming any future right. We have No Objection to Register for Ph.D.(Part-time) without any hindrance to the regular work.?
15. By the subsequent event on 27.11.2015, the 4th respondent college issued a paper publication, by which, invited applications from eligible candidates for selection and appointment to the post of Lecturers in various subjects at the 4th respondent college. In the said notification in Sl.No.5, one Lecturer post for the subject Zoology was advertised.
16. Since the petitioner had already been working in the 4th respondent college as Lecturer in Zoology subject, of course, on consolidated pay and her request to absorb her in the said post of Lecturer for Zoology subject on regular time scale basis is still pending, the petitioner, aggrieved over the said advertisement dated 27.11.2015 issued by the 4th respondent inviting applications to fill up the post of Lecturer including the one post of Lecturer for the Zoology subject, challenging the same, has approached this Court by filing writ petition in W.P(MD).No.22313 of 2015. In the said writ petition, an interim order was passed on 14.12.2015, which reads as follows:
?The petitioner is working as Lecturer in consolidated pay in a regular vacancy for more than 9 years from 09.03.2006 without any break. The petitioner possessed the requisite qualification when she was appointed in 2006. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner possessed M.Phil., when she was appointed in 2006. SLET/NET/Ph.D., are prescribed as required qualification only from 2009 by the UGC Regulations. Since the petitioner was appointed prior to it, she is entitled to be absorbed in the said post and she has also a vested right, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.Suseela v. University Grants Commission, reported in (2015) 3 MLJ 734 (SC).
2. In these circumstances, the respondent-authority issued a Notification to fill up one post, which she is occupying for the past 9 years by the impugned Notification. Hence, there shall be an order of interim injunction restraining the respondents from filling up the post of Lecturer, as per the impugned Notification. It is made clear that the injunction order will not come in the way of filling up other posts.?
17. In this regard, the service certificate issued by the 4th respondent college, dated 21.8.2015 filed by the petitioner in the typed set of papers can be usefully extracted hereunder:
?SREE DEVI KUMARI WOMEN'S COLLEGE, KUZHITHURAI This is to certify that Tmty. V.G.Dharsana worked in this college as temporary Lecturer in Zoology with a consolidated pay of Rs.4000/- (Rupees four thousand only) from the Kanyakumari District Temples General Fund. The incumbent worked purely on temporary basis with out any future right over this college. The incumbent's temporary appointment only for the concerned academic year as detailed below.
Service Period (UG) 09.03.2006 to 18.04.2006 (Semester Vacation: 19-04-2006 to 11-06-2006) 12-06-2006 to 02-11-2006(Semester Vacation : 03-11-2006 to 04-12-2006) 05.12.2006 to 20.04.2007 (Semester Vacation : 21.04.2007 to 12.06.2007) 13.06.2007 to 23.10.2007 (Semester Vacation : 24-10-2007 to 25-11-2007) 26.11.2007 to 24.04.2008 (Semester Vacation : 25-04-2008 to 15-06-2008) 16.06.2008 to 04.11.2008 (Semester Vacation : 05-11-2008 to 03-12-2008) 04.12.2008 to 02.05.2009 (Semester Vacation : 03-05-2009 to 16-06-2009) 17.06.2009 to 02.11.2009 (Semester Vacation : 03-11-2009 to 06-12-2009) 07.12.2009 to 26.04.2010 (Semester Vacation : 27-04-2010 to 20-06-2010) 21.06.2010 to 28.10.2010 (Semester Vacation : 29-10-2010 to 01-12-2010) 02.12.2010 to 28.04.2011 (Semester Vacation : 29-04-2011 to 14-06-2011) 15.06.2011 to 04.08.2011 03.10.2011 to 13.10.2011 26.12.2011 to 23.04.2012 (Semester Vacation : 24-04-2012 to 01-07-2012) 02.07.2012 to 31.10.2012 (Semester Vacation : 01-11-2012 to 04-12-2012) 05.12.2012 to 02.05.2013 (Semester Vacation :03-05-2013 to 19-06-2013) 20.06.2013 to 27.08.2013 14.07.2014 to 29.10.2014 (Semester Vacation : 30-10-2014 to 03-12-2014) 04.12.2014 to 21.04.2015 (Semester Vacation : 22-04-2015 to 17-06-2015)
18.06.2015 to till date PRINCIPAL SREE DEVI KUMARI WOMEN'S COLLEGE KUZHITHURAI : 629 183
18. With these backdrop, the petitioner continued to work at the 4th respondent college as Lecturer for Zoology subject on consolidated pay atleast from 09.3.2006, till date.
19. In the meanwhile, before filing this writ petition and also during the pendency of this writ petition, some developments have taken place, which are required to be noticed by this Court for disposal of this writ petition.
The UGC by notification dated 14.6.2006, issued the regulations called:
?UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION (MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS REQUIRED FOR THE APPOINTMENT AND CAREER ADVANCEMENT OF TEACHERS IN UNIVERSITIES AND INSTITUTIONS AFFILIATED TO IT (SECOND AMENDMENT REGULATIONS, 2006).
20. According to the said regulations, the UGC has made it clear that, the NET shall be a compulsory requirement for appointment of Lecturer. However, those who are having Ph.D degree or M.Phil degree are exempted from having the NET qualification and the relevant portion of the aforesaid regulations are extracted hereunder :
?NET shall remain the compulsory requirement for appointment as Lecturer for those with post-graduate degree. However, the candidates having Ph.D degree in the concerned subject are exempted from NET for PG level and UG level teaching. The candidates having M.Phil degree in the concerned subject are exempted from NET for UG level teaching only?.
21. In this context, the case of the petitioner is that, since she is qualified with M.Phil degree, even prior to joining the lecturership at the 4th respondent college, even according to the UGC Regulations, 2006, referred to above, the requirement of NET qualification shall be dispensed with insofar as the petitioner is concerned, when she was specifically directed to handle classes for UG level students.
22. The 4th respondent has brought to the notice of this Court that, in Government Order in G.O.(Ms.)No.220, Higher Education Department, dated 12.06.2003, number of posts of Lecturers had been sanctioned for various colleges under the management of HR and CE Department. Accordingly, the 4th respondent college being one of the Arts College, under the management of HR & CE Department, 5 posts of lecturership had been sanctioned to the 4th respondent college. However, since the 4th respondent college had sought for one more posts of lecturer to be sanctioned, in addition to the 5 posts, the same was also sanctioned by the Government by Government letter No.76, Higher Education Department, dated 03.4.2007. The relevant portion of the Government letter is extracted hereunder:
?2/ mth;fs; midtUf;Fk; 5 Mz;LfSf;F khjbkhd;Wf;F U:/4000-? bjhFg;g{jpakhf tH';fg;gLk; vdt[k; Mizfsplg;gl;lJ/ gpd;dh; mUs;kpF gHdpahz;lth; gz;ghL Mz;fs; fy;Y}hp kw;Wk; kfsph; fy;Y}hpf;F Kiwahf tH';fg;gl;l 20 kw;Wk; 6 gzpapl';fSf;Fk; muR khd;ak; tH';Fk; vd;Wk; ghh;it 2y; fhQqk; muR fojj;jpy; Mizfsplg;gl;lJ/ mjd; gpd;dh; ,e;J rka mwepiya Jiw Mizah; jpUbey;ntyp khtl;lk;. _ guhrf;jp bgz;fs; fy;Y}pf;F tH';fg;gl;l 11 gzpapl';fis 10 gzpapl';fshft[k;. _ njtp Fkhp bgz;fs; fy;Y}hp. FHpj;Jiw. fd;dpahFkhp khtl;lj;jpw;F tH';fg;gl;l 5 gzpapl';fis 6 gzpapl';fshft[k; jpUj;jp xJf;fPL bra;j jdJ braYf;F murpd; gpd;ndw;g[ nfl;ljw;fpz';f mt;thnw ghh;it 3y; fhQqk;
muR. fojj;jpy; gpd;ndw;g[ tH';fp Mizfsplg;gl;lJ/?
23. The learned counsel for the fourth respondent has also brought to the notice of this Court that, out of 6 posts, 5 posts were filled up by the proceedings of the 4th respondent dated 25.9.2007, including the posts of lecturer for the subject zoology, where one Mrs.Seetha Lakshmi was appointed. By further proceedings dated 17.10.2014, all those, who had been appointed in the sanctioned posts on consolidated pay, have been confirmed and regularised in the time scale of pay. Subsequently, one more person, who was not brought under the time scale of pay also was regularised and brought under time scale of pay by the proceedings of the 4th respondent, dated 12.10.2015. Therefore, by citing these proceedings, the learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent would submit that, the petitioner has never been appointed in a sanctioned post and since all sanctioned posts (6 posts), have been filled up, which includes a post of Lecturer for the subject Zoology, the petitioner cannot make any claim to be absorbed in the sanctioned post of lectureship for Zoology subject at 4th respondent college.
24. Though such a submission was made by the learned counsel for the 4th respondent before this Court, the 4th respondent has not explained with regard to two advertisements / notifications inviting application from eligible candidates to fill up the post of lectureship in various subjects at 4th respondent college. The first one is dated 03.10.2007. According to which, applications were invited from eligible candidates on or before 12.10.2007 to fill up 11 posts of Lecturer in various subjects, which includes Zoology for which two posts of Lecturer have been earmarked. The second notification is the one i.e., dated 27.11.2015, which is infact the subject matter in W.P.No.22313 of 2015, where also, applications were called for to fill up 8 posts of Lecturers in various subjects, including a post of Lecturer in Zoology.
25.Assuming that the vacancy for the Lecturer post of Zoology subject, for which applications were called for, by advertisement dated 03.10.2007, is filled up, certainly, one post of lecturer for the subject Zoology for which applications were called for by notification of the 4th respondent dated 27.11.2015, certainly has not, so far been filled up.
26.Only in that context, in M.P(MD).No.2 of 2015 in W.P(MD).No.22313 of 2015, this Hon'ble Court has passed the interim order by observing that, the petitioner has been continuously working at the 4th respondent college from 09.3.2006 i.e. for 9 years in the post of lecturer in Zoology subject for which application was called for through the impugned notification in the said writ petition, therefore, it shall not be filled up. Accordingly, an interim order of injunction was granted. This Court is informed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that, the said writ petition is still pending.
27.Therefore, the fact remains that, the petitioner, admittedly, was appointed and has been working as Lecturer in Zoology subject at the 4th respondent college atleast from 09.3.2006 continuously. The artificial break given by the 4th respondent college, during summer recess, cannot be taken into account, as the reason for such break cannot be attributed on the petitioner.
28.Further, at the time of appointment of the petitioner in the year 2006, qualification, even according to the UGC norms under UGC Regulations 2006, would be that, PG qualification with M.Phil or Ph.D or NET.
29.If a candidate is having the Ph.D or M.Phil, the said requirement of NET need not be insisted upon, insofar as the lecturer post for PG courses and the UG courses respectively. This position has been clarified in the UGC notification, dated 14.6.2006 and the relevant portion of the same has already been extracted hereinabove. Though it was argued by the learned counsel for the 4th respondent that, the said notification has been subsequently amended by UGC Regulation of the year 2009, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in this regard would rely upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2015 (3) MLJ 734 (SC) in the matter of P.Suseela and others Vs. University Grants Commission and others. The said Judgment has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner for the limited purpose of emphasising the principle that, the import of 2009 UGC regulations would be implemented prospectively and the said import of the regulation cannot be put against the candidates, who have already been appointed. In this regard, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would rely upon paragraph 15 of the Judgment which reads thus:
?15.Similar is the case on facts here. A vested right would arise only if any of the appellants before us had actually been appointed to the post of Lecturer/Assistant Professors. Till that date, there is no vested right in any of the appellants. At the highest, the appellants could only contend that they have a right to be considered for the post of Lecturer/Assistant Professor. This right is always subject to minimum eligibility conditions, and till such time as the appellants are appointed, different conditions may be laid down at different times. Merely because an additional eligibility condition in the form of a NET test is laid down, it does not mean that any vested right of the appellants is affected, nor does it mean that the regulation laying down such minimum eligibility condition would be retrospective in operation. Such condition would only be prospective as it would apply only at the stage of appointment. It is clear, therefore, that the contentions of the private appellants before us must fail.?
(Emphasis supplied)
30.If the said proposition of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as given in the said Judgment cited supra, is applied in the facts of the present case, there is no difficulty to come to the conclusion that, insofar as the petitioner is concerned, since she was selected and appointed as Lecturer for the subject Zoology in the month of February / March, 2006, with the qualification of UG degree, PG degree and M.Phil degree on the relevant subjects, certainly, the subsequent modifications or amendments made in 2009 UGC Regulations cannot be put against the petitioner.
31.Even in respect of similarly placed Lecturers, who had been appointed at the 4th respondent college on temporary basis on consolidated pay for various subjects, atleast 6 of them have been absorbed by the 4th respondent college under two different proceedings, one is dated 17.10.2014 and another one is dated 12.10.2015. If the same analogy is applied to the case of the petitioner, certainly, such a benefit shall also be extended to the petitioner, as she has been working at the 4th respondent college, admittedly, from 09.3.2006 on consolidated pay.
32.However, in respect of the claim made by the 5th respondent, that she is more qualified than the petitioner, as she is a Doctorate as obtained the Ph.D degree, therefore, she should be absorbed in the post of Lecturer for Zoology, is concerned, this Court cannot give any relief to the 5th respondent as she claimed, because of the reason that, the 5th respondent was not appointed prior to the writ petitioner, since she claimed that she was appointed only in the year 2007 and she was working from 13.08.2007 to 11.3.2010. Though subsequently, she was appointed under faculty programme on 06.3.2010, she was ousted by the 4th respondent in the month of March 2012 and admittedly, from 09.3.2012, the 5th respondent has not been working at the 4th respondent college.
33.However, as far as the writ petitioner is concerned, admittedly, the petitioner had been working continuously from 09.3.2006 till date and this factor is reflected in the service certificate issued by the 4th respondent college itself.
34.The intermittent break during summer vacation and also because of the ousting order issued in the year 2013, which was subsequently been quashed by this Court, would not stand in the way of the claim made by the petitioner for continuous engagement as Lecturer for the subject Zoology, of course, on consolidated pay at the 4th respondent college.
35.Therefore, this Court feels that the 5th respondent's case, cannot be compared with the writ petitioner and therefore, on the strength of the working as Lecturer in Zoology subject for some years, i.e., from 2007 to 2012, the 5th respondent cannot claim any right over the writ petitioner for absorption in the post of Lecturer for Zoology subject.
36.Since the 4th respondent college, issued a notification inviting applications to fill up the post of Lecturer in Zoology subject by notification, dated 27.11.2015, it become clear that one post of Lecturer in Zoology subject duly sanctioned, is vacant at the 4th respondent college.
37.That is the reason why the learned Judge by interim order, dated 14.12.2015 in W.P.(MD).No.22313 of 2015 injuncted the 4th respondent from filling up the post of Lecturer in Zoology subject. Therefore, the said post of Lecturer in Zoology subject is kept vacant.
38.In view of the fact that, the petitioner had been continuously working from 09.3.2006 and at the time of her appointment, the petitioner fulfilled the minimum required qualification to hold the post of Lecturer as per the UGC norms and the enhancement of the qualification by subsequent UGC norms of the year 2009, since would be made applicable prospectively, as per the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court as cited supra, and one post of Lecturer in Zoology subject admittedly, is vacant at the 4th respondent college as reflected in the notification dated 27.11.2015, this Court feels that, the request of the petitioner can very well be considered by the 4th respondent in the line of consideration shown by the 4th respondent in respect of atleast 6 Lecturers, who have been originally appointed on consolidated pay and subsequently have been absorbed in the respective sanctioned posts by bringing them under time scale of pay by the proceedings of the 4th respondent dated 17.10.2014 and 12.10.2015.
39.For all these reasons, this Court is inclined to pass the following order in this writ petition:
(i) That the 4th respondent is directed to consider the request of the petitioner for absorption as Lecturer (Zoology) at the 4th respondent college by bringing her under time scale of pay, as has been done by the 4th respondent in respect of similarly placed persons by their proceedings in br/K/e/f/vz;. 3067 -2007- rp/1/ dated 17.10.2014 and further proceedings in e/f/vz;.222-2015 dated 12.10.2015.
(ii) Such absorption shall be made by the 4th respondent with effect from 09.3.2006, from the date on which, admittedly, the petitioner had been working at the 4th respondent college.
(iii) Further, the petitioner shall not be entitled to claim any higher salary for the period from 09.3.2006, till the date of absorption;
(iv) The aforesaid exercise shall be undertaken by the 4th respondent within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
40.It is made clear that the absorption to be made as directed above, is subject to the outcome of the writ petition in W.P.No.22313 of 2015.
With the above directions, this Writ Petition is ordered. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
To
1.The Director of Collegiate Education, College Road, Chennai-600 006.
2. The Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Tirunelveli Region, 1st Floor, Sahuntala Shopping Complex, Thiruvanathapuram Road, Tirunelveli-627 003.
3. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious And Charitable Endowments Department, Nungampakkam, Chennai-600 034.
4. The Secretary, Sri Devi Kumari Women College, Kuzhithurai Post, Kanyakumari District.
.