Kerala High Court
The State Of Kerala vs Babu S on 16 December, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 KER 948
Bench: A.M.Shaffique, T.V.Anilkumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.V.ANILKUMAR
MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019/25TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941
WA.No.1999 OF 2018
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 8339/2014(N) OF HIGH COURT OF
KERALA DT 15/11/2017
APPELLANT/RESPONDENTS 1, 3 AND 4 IN WP(C):
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2 THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION
PALACE ROAD, THRISSUR-680 001.
BY SRI. A.J. VARGHESE-SR.G.P.
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS & RESPONDENTS 2ND AND 5TH IN WP(c):
1 BABU S.
NANADANAM, T.C.9/2293, EDAVACODE, SREEKARYAM
P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-17.
2 GOPALAKRISHNAN K
E-10, KRISHNA SANATHANAM, SANTHI COLONY, CHANDRA
NAGAR P.O, PALAKKAD-7.
WA No.1999/18 & conn.cases
-:2:-
3 SUJA ELEZABATH MATHEW
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS,
MES KALLADY COLLEGE, MANNARKADU-678582.
4 UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT
REPRESENTED BY REGISTRAR-673635.
5 THE CORRESPONDENT AND CHAIRMAN
STANDING COMMITTEE ON MES COLLEGE, CALICUT-1.
R1-3 BY ADV. M.S.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR
R4 BY ADV. P.C.SASIDHARAN(B/O)
R5 BY ADV. SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH
R5 BY ADV. SRI.P.U.VINOD KUMAR
R5 BY ADV. SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU
R5 BY ADV. SRI.K.M.FAISAL (KALAMASSERY)
R5 BY ADV. SMT.V.R.LAKSHMI
R5 BY ADV. SRI.AVINASH P RAVEENDRAN
R5 BY ADV. AMRIN FATHIMA
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
24.10.2019, ALONG WITH WA.31/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON 16.12.2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA No.1999/18 & conn.cases
-:3:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.V.ANILKUMAR
MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019/25TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941
WA.No.1267 OF 2019
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 11679/2018(H) OF HIGH COURT
OF KERALA DATED 4/4/2018
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1, 2 AND 3 IN WP(C):
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001
2 THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION
THIRUVANANTHPAURAM-695001
3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE
EDUCATION, KOLLAM-691001
BY SRI. A.J. VARGHESE-SR.G.P.
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS & RESPONDENTS 4 AND 5 IN WP(C):
1 DR.SRILEKHA NAIR
D/O.N.NARAYANAN NAIR, SREE RANGAM, T.C.48/2640
NEAR MANGAD L.P.SCHOOL, THIRUMALA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (WORKING AS ASSOCIATE
PROFESSOR OF COMMERCE, ALL SAINT'S COLLEGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM)695006
2 DR.RESHMI.R.PRASAD, ADWAITHAM, T.C.3/1505,
LEKSHMI NAGAR B-13, KESAVADASAPURAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004(WORKING AS ASSOCIATE
PROFESSOR OF COMMERCE, ALL SAINT'S COLLEGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM)
WA No.1999/18 & conn.cases
-:4:-
3 THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY REGISTRAR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695034
4 THE MANAGER
ALL SAINT'S COLLEGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695021
R1-2 BY ADV. SRI.M.S.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR(BY
ORDER)
R3 BY SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM, SC, UNIVERSITY OF
KERALA
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
24.10.2019, ALONG WITH WA.1999/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES,
THE COURT ON 16.12.2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA No.1999/18 & conn.cases
-:5:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.V.ANILKUMAR
MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019/25TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941
WA.No.1656 OF 2019
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 37558/2017(T) OF HIGH COURT
OF KERALA DATED 10/8/2018
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 IN WP(C):
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REP. BY SPECIAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2 THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,
THRISSUR-680001.
BY SRI. A.J. VARGHESE-SR.G.P.
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 4 AND 5 IN WP(c):
1 N.MOHANAN PILLAI
AGED 56 YEARS
S/O.NARAYANA PILLAI, PEKKATHALA KIZHAKKETHIL
HOUSE, MUTHUKULAM SOUTH P.O., ALLEPPEY DISTRICT
(WORKING AS ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF
ECONOMICS, N.S.S. COLLEGE, OTTAPPALAM)690506.
2 UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT,
REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY
CAMPUS, THENJIPPALAM, MALAPPURAM-673635.
WA No.1999/18 & conn.cases
-:6:-
3 THE SECRETARY,
N.S.S. COLLEGE, CENTRAL COMMITTEE,
CHANGANACHERRY-686102.
R1 BY ADV. M.S.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR(BY ORDER)
R2 BY ADV. P.C.SASIDHARAN(BY ORDER)
R3 BY ADV. P.GOPAL(BY ORDER)
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
24.10.2019, ALONG WITH WA.1999/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES,
THE COURT ON 16.12.2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA No.1999/18 & conn.cases
-:7:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.V.ANILKUMAR
MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019/25TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941
WA.No.1692 OF 2019
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 2592/2018(Y) OF HIGH COURT
OF KERALA DT 10/8/2018
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 IN WP(C):
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REP BY SPECIAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2 THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
3 THE DEPUTY DIRECOTR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,
KOLLAM-691 001.
4 THE DEPUTY DIRECOTR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,
KOTTAYAM
BY SRI. A.J. VARGHESE-SR.G.P.
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS 1 TO 4 AND RESPONDENTS 5 AND 6 IN
WP(C):
1 DR.SHERLY.P.ANAND
W/O DR. P.B SATHEESH BABU, POIKAYIL SREE
MANDIRAM, PALLARIMANGALAM P.O.MAVELIKKARA,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT (NOW WORKING AS PRINCIPAL
TKMM COLLEGE, NANGIARKULANGARA), 690 107.
WA No.1999/18 & conn.cases
-:8:-
2 SREEMON P.SREEBHAVAN,
ARATTUPUZHA (NORTH) P.O.ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT
(WORKING AS ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF ZOOLOGY ,
TKMM COLLEGE, NANGIARKULANGARA)690 515.
3 DR. SREEJAYA,
S/B.REVIVILASOM, MUTHUKULAM SOUTH P.O.ALAPPUZHA
DISTRICT(WORKING AS ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF
ZOOLOGY,TKMM COLLEGE, NANGIARKULANGARA-690 506
4 DR.SHINY SREEDHAR ,
S.N.NIVAS,KUTHIATHODE P.O. CHERTHALA (WORKING
AS PRINCIPAL S.N.COLLEGE, CHENGANOOR)688 533.
5 THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY REGISTRAR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 034.
6 THE MANAGER,
S.N. COLLEGE, KOLLAM-691 001.
R1-4 BY ADV. M.S.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR(B/O)
R5 BY SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM, SC, UNIVERSITY OF
KERALA
R6 BY ADV. A.N.RAJAN BABU(B/O)
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
24.10.2019, ALONG WITH WA.1999/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES,
THE COURT ON 16.12.2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA No.1999/18 & conn.cases
-:9:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.V.ANILKUMAR
MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019/25TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941
WA.No.177 OF 2019
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 8244/2014(E) OF HIGH COURT OF
KERALA DT 15/11/2017
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1, 3 AND 4 IN WP(c):
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REP BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER
EDUCATIONAL DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001
2 THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001
3 THE DEPUTY DIRECOTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,
PALACE ROAD, THRISSUR-680001
BY SRI. A.J. VARGHESE-SR.G.P.
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENTS 2ND AND 5TH IN
WP(C):
1 DR.SINDHU G. NAIR
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS,
N.S.S.COLLEGE, OTTAPALAM.
2 MANJU B.L.
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF PHYSICS,
N.S.S.COLLEGE, OTTAPALAM.
WA No.1999/18 & conn.cases
-:10:-
3 DR.BALAKRISHNAN.M
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF ZOOLOGY,
N.S.SCOLLEGE, OTTAPALAM.
4 DR.ANILKUMAR.S
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF CHEMISTRY,
N.S.S.HINDU COLLEGE, CHANGANACHERY
5 UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT,
REP BY REGISTRAR, CALICUT-673636
6 THE SECRETARY,
N.S.S. COLLEGES CENTRAL COMMITTEE,
CHANGANASSERY-686101
R1-4 BY ADV. SRI.M.S RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR(BY
ORDER)
R5 BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, CALICUT
UNIVERSITY
R6 BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPAL(BY ORDER)
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
24.10.2019, ALONG WITH WA.1999/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES,
THE COURT ON 16.12.2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA No.1999/18 & conn.cases
-:11:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.V.ANILKUMAR
MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019/25TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941
WA.No.1909 OF 2019
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 2593/2018(Y) OF HIGH COURT
OF KERALA DATED 10/8/2018
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 IN WP(C):
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
2 THE DIRECTOF OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION
KOLLAM - 691 001.
4 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION
KOTTAYAM 686001.
BY SRI. A.J. VARGHESE-SR.G.P.
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS, RESPONDENTS 5 AND 6 IN WPC:
1 P.S.SHERLY
D/O. P. SOMAN PUSHPA, REGHUNATHAPURAM, VARKALA
P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (NOW WORKING AS
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF ZOOLOGY IN S.N. COLLEGE,
KOLLAM)-691012.
WA No.1999/18 & conn.cases
-:12:-
2 SANJU. C.
BREEZEVILLA, PALLOM P.O., KOTTAYAM (WORKING AS
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF ZOOLOGY IN S. N.
COLLEGE, CHERTHALA)688523.
3 SYNUDEEN SAHIB
S.S. COTTAGE, NJARACKAL, PERINAD P.O., KOLLAM,
NOW WORKING AS ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR IN ZOOLOGY,
S. N. COLLEGE, KOLLAM)691601.
4 THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY REGISTRAR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695034.
5 THE MANAGER
S. N. COLLEGES, KOLLAM - 691 001.
R4 BY SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM, SC, UNIVERSITY OF
KERALA
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
24.10.2019, ALONG WITH WA.1999/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES,
THE COURT ON 16.12.2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA No.1999/18 & conn.cases
-:13:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.V.ANILKUMAR
MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019/25TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941
WA.No.255 OF 2019
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 608/2018(A) OF HIGH COURT OF
KERALA DATED 14/2/2018
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1, 2 AND 3 IN WPC:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REP.BY SPECIAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2 THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,
KOLLAM-691001.
BY SRI. A.J. VARGHESE-SR.G.P.
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS & RESPONDENTS 4 AND 5 IN WPC:
1 DR.SREEJA.J
S/O.P.PARAMESWARAN,SOUPARNIKA,KOONAYIL,
NEDUNGOLAM.P.O,KOLLAM.(NOW WORKING AS ASSOCIATE
PROFESSOR IN ZOOLOGY,S.N.COLLEGE OF
WOMEN,KOLLAM)-691334.
2 THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY REGISTRAR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695034.
WA No.1999/18 & conn.cases
-:14:-
3 THE MANAGER,
S.N.COLLEGE,KOLLAM-691001.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.S.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR
R2 BY SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM, SC, UNIVERSITY OF
KERALA
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
24.10.2019, ALONG WITH WA.1999/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES,
THE COURT ON 16.12.2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA No.1999/18 & conn.cases
-:15:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.V.ANILKUMAR
MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019/25TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941
WA.No.301 OF 2019
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 609/2018(A) OF HIGH COURT OF
KERALA DATED 14/2/2018
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1, 2 AND 3 IN WPC:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REP.BY SPECIAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2 THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,
KOLLAM-691001.
BY SRI. A.J. VARGHESE-SR.G.P.
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS & RESPONDENTS 4 AND 5 IN WP(c):
1 DR.CHITHRA.P.M
D/O.G.GOPI,CHITHRA,PRIYADARSHINI
NAGAR,10B(A),2ND MILL STONE,
KILLIKOLLUR,KOLLAM(NOW WORKING AS ASSOCIATE
PROFESSOR OF CHEMISTRY)S.N.COLLEGE FOR
WOMEN,KOLLAM 691004.
2 DR.NISHA.V,
SREESHANKARA SOUHARDA NAGAR-
60,KILIKOLLUR.P.O,KOLLAM(NOW WORKING AS
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF CHEMISTRY IN S.N.COLLEGE
FOR WOMEN,KOLLAM) 691004.
WA No.1999/18 & conn.cases
-:16:-
3 THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY REGISTRAR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695034
4 THE MANAGER,
S.N.COLLEGE,KOLLAM-691001.
R1-2 BY ADV. SRI.M.S.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR
R3 BY SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM, SC, UNIVERSITY OF
KERALA
R4 BY ADV. SRI.A.N.RAJAN BABU
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
24.10.2019, ALONG WITH WA.1999/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES,
THE COURT ON 16.12.2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA No.1999/18 & conn.cases
-:17:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.V.ANILKUMAR
MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019/25TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941
WA.No.31 OF 2019
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 9290/2014(I) OF HIGH COURT
OF KERALA DATED 15/11/2017
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1, 3 AND 4 IN WPC:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001
2 THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001
3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,
PALACE ROAD, THRISSUR-680001
BY SRI. A.J. VARGHESE-SR.G.P.
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS & RESPONDENTS 2ND AND 5TH IN WPC:
1 DR. JYOTHISH KUMAR K.
S/O N. KRISHAN PILLAI, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR,
DEPARTMENT OF MALAYALAM, M.G. COLLEGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001
2 DR. AJITH G. KRISHNA,
KARAPPAYIL HOUSE, KOTTARKAVU, MAVELIKKARA P.O,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-690101
WA No.1999/18 & conn.cases
-:18:-
3 DR. VIJAYAN PILLAI.M,
MANNURAZHIKATHU VEEDU, KOTTUKAL P.O,
ANCHAL.-695123
4 SMT. BEENA S,
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR MATHEMATICS,
N.S.S COLLEGE, NILAMEL-691535
5 LALITHAMMA,
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SANSKRIT, N.S.S COLLEGE,
NILAMEL-691535
6 DR. C.R.ANITHA,
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR MALAYALAM, N.S.S.COLLEGE
FOR WOMEN, KARAMANA-695012
7 UNIVERSITY OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY BUILDING,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001
8 THE SECRETARY,
N.S.S. COLLEGE, CENTRAL COMMITTEE,
CHANGANACHERRY-686101
R1, R3-4, R6 BY ADV. SRI.M.S.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR
BY ADV. SRI .M.S RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR FOR R-1 TO
R-6
R7 BY SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM, SC, UNIVERSITY OF
KERALA
R8 SRI.P.GOPAL
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
24.10.2019, ALONG WITH WA.1999/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES,
THE COURT ON 16.12.2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA No.1999/18 & conn.cases
-:19:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.V.ANILKUMAR
MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019/25TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941
WA.No.486 OF 2019
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 523/2018(M) OF HIGH COURT OF
KERALA DATED 14/2/2018
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1, 2 AND 3 IN WPC:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REP BY SPECIAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001
2 THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001
3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,
KOLLAM 691 001.
BY SRI. A.J. VARGHESE-SR.G.P.
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS & RESPONDENTS 4 AND 5 IN WPC:
1 DR.SHAJI.A,
S/O ANURUDHAN, DEEPAM, C.G.R-A5 CHEMPAZHANTHY
P.O.THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695587, NOW WORKING AS
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF HISTORY, SCHOOL OF
DISTANCE EDUCATION, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695034
2 THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY REGISTRAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
WA No.1999/18 & conn.cases
-:20:-
3 THE MANANGER,
S.N.COLLEGE, KOLLAM 691 001
R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.S.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR
R2 BY SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM, SC, UNIVERSITY OF
KERALA
R3 BY ADV. SRI.RAJAN BABU FOR R-3 B/O
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
24.10.2019, ALONG WITH WA.1999/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES,
THE COURT ON 16.12.2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA No.1999/18 & conn.cases
-:21:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.V.ANILKUMAR
MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019/25TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941
WA.No.725 OF 2019
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 931/2018(N) OF HIGH COURT OF
KERALA DATED 14/2/2018
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1, 2 AND 3 IN WPC:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REP. BY SPECIAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.
2 THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCTION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.
3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,
KOLLAM 691 001.
BY SRI. A.J. VARGHESE-SR.G.P.
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 4 AND 5 IN WPC:
1 DR.S.GEETHA,
D/O. M.R SUDHAKARAN, SANGEETH, KRA B98/12
KALOOR GARDENS, KANNAMMOOLA, MEDICAL COLLEGE
P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
RETIRED ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF ZOOLOGY FROM SN
COLLEGE CHEMPAZHANTHY.
2 THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY REGISTRAR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695034.
WA No.1999/18 & conn.cases
-:22:-
3 THE MANAGER,
S.N COLLEGE, KOLLAM 691 001
R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.S.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR
R2 BY SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM, SC, UNIVERSITY OF
KERALA
R3 BY ADV. SRI.A.N.RAJAN BABU(BY ORDER)
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
24.10.2019, ALONG WITH WA.1999/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES,
THE COURT ON 16.12.2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA No.1999/18 & conn.cases
-:23:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.V.ANILKUMAR
MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019/25TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941
WA.No.75 OF 2019
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 3328/2018(M) OF HIGH COURT
OF KERALA DATED 14/2/2018
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 IN WPC:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2 THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695001.
3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,
KOLLAM - 691001.
BY SRI. A.J. VARGHESE-SR.G.P.
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 4 AND 5 IN WPC:
1 DR.REENA RAVINDRAN
W/O. CHANDRABOSE P.K,
THEJUS MGRA-30, MAHARAJAS LANE,
ANAYARA P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (WORKING AS ASSOCIATE
PROFESSOR OF CHEMISTRY S.N.COLLEGE,
CHEMPAZHANTHY) - 695029.
2 THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY REGISTRAR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.
WA No.1999/18 & conn.cases
-:24:-
3 THE MANAGER,
S.N.COLLEGE, KOLLAM - 691001.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.S.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR
R2 BY SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM, SC, UNIVERSITY OF
KERALA
R3 BY ADV. SRI.A.N.RAJAN BABU
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
24.10.2019, ALONG WITH WA.1999/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES,
THE COURT ON 16.12.2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA No.1999/18 & conn.cases
-:25:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.V.ANILKUMAR
MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019/25TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941
WA.No.841 OF 2019
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 2735/2018(N) OF HIGH COURT
OF KERALA DATED 19.2.2018
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1, 2 AND 4 IN WPC:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT,HIGHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2 THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,
VIKAS BHAVAN,VIKAS BHAVAN.P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,
KOLLAM-691001.
BY SRI. A.J. VARGHESE-SR.G.P.
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 3 AND 5 IN WPC:
1 DR.G.BABY GIRIJA
W/O.G.RADHAKRISHAN,AISWARYA,MRA,64,
MUNDAYIL,VARKALA,VARKALA.P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-6955151.
2 THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR,
UNIVERSITY CAMPUS,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
WA No.1999/18 & conn.cases
-:26:-
3 THE MANAGER,
S.N.TRUST,KOLLAM,KOLLAM(P.O),
PIN-691001.
R1 BY ADV. R.ANILKUMAR
R1 BY ADV. SRI.G.RADHAKRISHNAN
R2 BY SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM, SC, UNIVERSITY OF
KERALA
R3 BY ADV. A.N.RAJAN BABU(B/O)
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
24.10.2019, ALONG WITH WA.1999/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES,
THE COURT ON 16.12.2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA No.1999/18 & conn.cases
-:27:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.V.ANILKUMAR
MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019/25TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941
WA.No.932 OF 2019
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 4527/2018(M) OF HIGH COURT
OF KERALA DATED 19.2.2018
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1, 2 AND 4 IN WPC:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2 THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION
VIKAS BHAVAN, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION
KOLLAM-691 001.
BY SRI. A.J. VARGHESE-SR.G.P.
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS & RESPONDENTS 3 AND 5 IN WPC:
1 DR.SASIKALA P.G.
W/O. D.SABU, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, (DEPARTMENT
OF HINDI), S.N.COLLEGE, KOLLAM, RESIDING AT
PULIYATHUVEEDU, MAYYANADU P.O., KOLLAM-691303.
2 DR. SREEJA S.
W/O SURESH KUMAR D., ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR,
DEPARTMENT OF HINDI, S.N.COLLEGE, CHEPAZHANTHY,
RESIDING AT NITHYA T.C., IX/2527, JAN VILLAW
LANE, J-20, SASTHAMANGALAM P.O., PIN-691 501,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
WA No.1999/18 & conn.cases
-:28:-
3 THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS ITS REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY
CAMPUS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695034.
4 THE MANAGER
S.N TRUST, KOLLAM, KOLLAM (PO), PIN-691 001.
R1-2 BY ADV. SRI.M.S.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR
R3 BY SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM, SC, UNIVERSITY OF
KERALA
R4 BY ADV. RAJAN BABU FOR R-4.B/O
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
24.10.2019, ALONG WITH WA.1999/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES,
THE COURT ON 16.12.2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA No.1999/18 & conn.cases
-:29:-
"C.R"
JUDGMENT
[ WA.1999/2018 WA.31, WA.75, WA.177, WA.255, WA.301, WA.486, WA.725, WA.841, WA.932, WA.1267, WA.1656, WA.1692 & WA.1909/19 Dated this the 16th day of December 2019 Shaffique, J.
These appeals are filed by State of Kerala and its authorities challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge in a batch of writ petitions by which direction had been issued to pass orders fixing the pay and allowances of the petitioners in the UGC scale of pay with effect from the date of their appointment as approved by the University.
2. The writ petitioners contended that they were appointed as Lecturers against substantive vacancies in Aided Colleges. Their scale of pay was fixed only in the State scale of pay. Therefore, they sought for fixation of scale of pay at the UGC rate.
3. They also relied upon judgment of this Court in WP(C) No. 13371/2007 (S.Anil Kumar and Another v. State of Kerala and Others) wherein a learned Single Judge having WA No.1999/18 & conn.cases -:30:- considered a similar matter held at paragraph 5 as under:-
"5. When, in 1991, the UGC scheme was implemented in the State of Kerala, the existing teachers were divided into two, viz. 52% in the UGC scale of pay and the balance in the State scale of pay. The 48% would be integrated into the UGC scale of pay after putting in the required number of years of service. Thereafter, all appointments made in aided colleges under the various Universities in Kerala could only have been in UGC scale. Admittedly, the petitioners were appointed on 8-3-1997 and 5-3-1997 after the UGC scheme was implemented in the State of Kerala. Therefore, the petitioners could have been appointed only in the UGC scale of pay. In fact, in Ext. P8, it is admitted that the petitioners, after completing the required period of service, were given placement in the senior scale of pay of Rs. 10000-15200. If they were to be given senior scale of pay after putting in the required number of years, necessarily, they should have been appointed in the UGC scale of pay, who only are entitled to placement in the senior scale of pay. That being so, I have no doubt in my mind that the petitioners are entitled to UGC scale of pay from the date of their appointment and revision of scale of pay as and when the UGC scale of pay was revised."
The said judgment had been upheld by this Court in WA No. 2621/2009 decided on 6/2/2014, wherein the Division Bench held at paragraphs 2 and 3 as under:-
"2.The writ petitioners were appointed on 05.03.1997 as against substantive vacancies (retirement vacancies) in S.N.College under the Sree WA No.1999/18 & conn.cases -:31:- Narayana Trust. They were placed in a scale of pay of Rs.2060-3200 + DA and other admissible allowances on a pay of Rs.2,060/- per month. They claimed benefit at par with Sri.Santhoshlal P.S who obtained Ext. P5 judgment of this Court. Santhoshlal was appointed in the same college as lecturer on 01.08.1997, ie., a few days short of 5 months after the appointment of the petitioners in this case. The Division Bench withdrawing the original petition filed by Santhoshlal decided it along with a writ appeal filed challenging the interim order in that original petition. The Bench dilated on the effect of Clause 5 of the Pre-Degree Course (Abolition) Act and held that there was no total ban of appointment and even according to the Empower Committee, the proposal for ban would not take in posts which related to period prior to 03.06.1997, the date on which the ordinance prohibiting creation or filling up of posts in the wake of PDC de-linking came into effect. Santhoshlal's case was thus decided by the Division Bench holding that in that case, vacancy arose before 03.06.1997 and Santhoshlal having been appointed as against that vacancy under UGC Scheme, his appointment was approved and he was, therefore, eligible to be paid.
3.In the case in hand, the petitioners were appointed on 05.03.1997, even before Santhoshlal. That appointment was against a substantive vacancy. The substantive vacancy had arisen, obviously, before the above noted cut off date. There is no reason to identify those posts in the Department of WA No.1999/18 & conn.cases -:32:- Mathematics or Department of Botany in the S.N.College, Kollam, as posts which were to be earmarked to be de-linked along with the PDC de- linking process. Under such circumstances, we find no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge since all that the writ petitioners got under that judgment is the benefit that Santhoshlal got in terms of Ext.P5 judgment of the Division Bench. The writ appeal, hence, fails."
4. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it was pointed out that consequent to the implementation of UGC scale, the college teachers were grouped into two categories. 52% of senior teachers were placed under the UGC Scheme and the balance 48% were considered as Pre-degree lecturers eligible for State scale alone. In so far as the petitioners in these cases were coming under the 48% category, their pay and allowances were applicable in terms with the State Government employees. It is argued that the judgments cited by the petitioners have no connection whatsoever with the facts of the case. That apart, writ petitioners were placed under the UGC Scale of pay after completing six years of service and therefore the claim itself after several decades is highly belated, and should not have been entertained by this Court.
WA No.1999/18 & conn.cases -:33:-
5. The learned Single Judge observed that in so far as UGC Scheme has been made applicable to all private colleges in the State from 1/01/1996, all the teachers are to be placed in the UGC Scale of pay w.e.f. 1/01/1996 and accordingly, directions were issued in favour of the petitioners as well.
6. In WA No. 1999/2018 arising from WP(C) No. 8339/2014, the first and 2 nd petitioners were appointed on 2/9/1996 and 18/12/1996 respectively. It is argued by the learned Government Pleader based on Annexure A1 order that the first petitioner was appointed in the scale of pay of `2060-60-2300-75- 3200 and it was specifically mentioned that he will not have any claim for appointments to UGC Scheme vacancies and that he will be prepared to teach in the Pre-degree level and will go to Pre- degree category as per Government Order dated 30/6/1995. It is argued that all the petitioners were appointed under the aforesaid pay scale when the pay scale of lecturers appointed under the UGC Scheme at the relevant time was `2200-75-2800- 100-4000.
7. There is no dispute about the fact that all the petitioners in these cases were appointed after 1/1/1996. By WA No.1999/18 & conn.cases -:34:- Government Order dated 21/12/1999, as per GO(P) No.171/1999/H.Edn, the State Government decided to implement UGC Scheme 1998 including revision of pay scales to College/University teachers/Physical Education teachers/ Librarians in the State subject to the terms and conditions therein. Clause 3.1 indicated that the revised UGC Scheme, 1998 will be restricted to those categories of staff only who were brought under the UGC Scheme 1986. At Clause 3.3 it is further stated that with the delinking of Pre-degree course, those teachers will be deployed to Higher Secondary Schools. All the teachers with UGC qualifications would be retained in the college stream even after the completion of Pre-degree linking in 2001. The categorisation of college teachers in the 52% and 48% will be dispensed. Under Clause 3.4, it is provided that those teachers who had come under the 48% category and were given the State scale of pay would automatically become eligible for the senior scale of UGC on completion of 6 years service as per the revised UGC Scheme. All the teachers coming under 48% category will be brought under the UGC scheme on completion of 6 years service as and when they become eligible for placement in the senior WA No.1999/18 & conn.cases -:35:- scale. It was further stated that "in future, recruitment will be restricted to UGC Scheme posts only and teachers with UGC qualifications will be directly recruited and they will be eligible for normal UGC scale of lecturers."
8. The contention urged by the learned Government Pleader is that all these teachers were appointed under the 48% category and were outside the UGC scheme which is evident from their appointment orders itself as their scale of pay was that of State scale ie `2030-3600 whereas UGC scale of pay was `2200- 4000. It is pointed out that in so far as the appointment of petitioners were under the 48% category, they could get the benefit of placement in the senior scale on completion of 6 years of service and they were also provided with the said senior scale.
9. On the other hand, contention of the writ petitioners is that the revised UGC Scheme, 1998 was implemented in the State w.e.f. 1/01/1996 and under Clause 5.1 dealing with scale of pay, it is indicated that the revised scale of pay (Appendix 1) will be admissible to various categories as on 1/1/1996. Appendix 1 A would show that the scale of pay for lecturer in Universities and colleges was `2200-75-2800-100-4000 and the revised scale of WA No.1999/18 & conn.cases -:36:- pay which would be effective from 1/1/1996 would be `8000-275- 13500. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that when the revised scale of pay would be admissible from 1/1/1996 and the revised UGC Scheme 1998 is implemented w.e.f. 1/1/1996, they are also entitled for the revised scale of pay as provided in Appendix IA.
10. Learned Government Pleader also pointed out that while issuing Government Order dated 23/3/1990, (G.O.Ms. No.76/90/H.Edn), to implement UGC scheme including revision of scales of pay to teachers, the college teachers in service were bifurcated as 52% coming under the UGC scheme and 48% not coming under the Scheme. It was also provided that those teachers who have completed 6 years of service coming under the category of 48% will be given UGC scale of pay. It is pointed out that Pre-degree Course (Abolition) Ordinance, 1997 was promulgated to abolish Pre-degree course. The Ordinance came into force on 3rd June, 1997. Under Section 5 of the Act, there was a ban to make appointments of teaching and non-teaching staff in any college for a period of three years from the date of commencement of the Act. It is pointed out that in the Special WA No.1999/18 & conn.cases -:37:- Rules for the Kerala Collegiate Education Service, 1994, Government had issued notification for appointment of Lecturers in Arts and Science Colleges under the non UGC Scheme as well. In respect of Lecturer by direct recruitment, special qualification had been prescribed, i.e., Master's degree in the concerned subject with at least 55% marks and good academic record. In addition to that, candidate should have passed a comprehensive test specifically conducted for the purpose by UGC or any agency duly constituted by the State Government in this behalf. Note indicated that all the Lecturers in service on the date of commencement of the Rules and not covered by the UGC Scheme ie., Lecturer (non UGC Scheme) shall be placed as Lecturers as and when vacancies arise. In the UGC Regulations 1991 regarding Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers in Universities and Colleges, it is mentioned at Clause 2 as under:-
"2. Qualifications:
No person shall be appointed to a teaching post in university or in any of institutions including constituent or affiliated colleges recognised under clause (f) of Section 2 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 or in an institution deemed to WA No.1999/18 & conn.cases -:38:- be a University under Section 3 of the said Act in a subject if he does not fulfil the requirement as to the qualifications for the appropriate subjects as provided in the Schedule I. Provided that any relaxation in the prescribed qualifications can only be made by a University in regard to the posts under it or any of the institutions including constituent or affiliated colleges recognised under clause (f) of Section 2 of the aforesaid Act or by an institution deemed to be a University under Section 3 of the said Act with the prior approval of the University Grants Commission.
Provided further that these regulations shall not be applicable to such cases where selections through duly constituted selection committees for making appointments to the teaching posts have been made prior to the enforcement of these regulations."
11. Schedule-I Clause (3) A relates to Lecturer in Arts, Sciences and other subjects. The qualification is prescribed as under:-
"(3) A Lecturer
(a) Arts, Sciences, Social Sciences, Commerce,
Education, Physical Education, Foreign Language and Law.
Good academic record with atleast 55% marks or an equivalent grade at Master's degree level in the relevant subject from an Indian University or an equivalent degree from a foreign University.
Candidates besides fulfilling the above WA No.1999/18 & conn.cases -:39:- qualifications should have cleared the eligibility test for lecturers conducted by UGC, CSIR or similar test accredited by the UGC."
12. From the aforesaid materials, it is rather clear that there were two streams of appointment made even after 1/1/1996. Apparently, GO(P) No.171/99 dated 21/12/1999 will have application only to those lecturers who were appointed under the UGC scheme. There is no dispute about the fact all the petitioners were appointed in the State scale of pay. That apart, in order to aspire for UGC scale of pay, the candidate should also acquire the necessary qualification as prescribed by UGC. Some of the candidates have produced records indicating that they were having NET qualification and Ph.D. even before the date of appointment.
13. In fact, all these cases were decided placing reliance upon earlier judgments of this Court. Learned Government Pleader submits that those judgments came to be rendered based on the factual situation arising in the said cases and even if a few of the petitioners were given the benefit of a higher pay scale, petitioners are not entitled to claim the same if it is found that they are not legally entitled for claiming such benefits. That WA No.1999/18 & conn.cases -:40:- apart, it is pointed out that all these writ petitions were filed after two decades and the writ Court ought to have dismissed the writ petitions as highly belated.
14. Let us now consider the previous judgments on the point. WA No. 2780/1999 and OP No.17385/99 (Santhosh Lal P.S. v. State of Kerala and Others) were decided by judgment dated 18/11/2000. Writ appeal was filed against an interim order in the Original Petition. Hence, both were decided together. That was a case in which the petitioner was appointed to the post of Lecturer on 1/8/1997 which was approved by the University. But salary was not disbursed to him. The reason for denial of salary was that his appointment was subsequent to Pre-degree Abolition Act. It is stated that since he was appointed in a retirement vacancy, the ban imposed under the Pre-degree Abolition Act do not apply. It was further found that the vacancy had arisen prior to 3/6/1997, the date on which ordinance prohibiting creation or filling up of posts in the wake of PDC delinking came into effect and since his appointment was under the UGC Scheme, direction had been issued for payment of salary. In S.Anilkumar's case (supra) decided on 6/7/2009, a claim was raised by the WA No.1999/18 & conn.cases -:41:- petitioners for UGC scale of pay. It was held that if the petitioners were given senior scale of pay after putting in the required number of years, necessarily, they should have been appointed in the UGC scale of pay, Hence, petitioners are entitled to UGC scale of pay from the date of their appointment.
15. The matter was carried in appeal before the Division Bench in WA No.2621/2009. The Division Bench observed that since the petitioners were appointed on 5/3/1997 even before Santhosh Lal was appointed in Santhosh Lal's case (supra), there is no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and accordingly, the writ appeal was dismissed. Though the matter was carried by the State before the Apex Court, the Apex Court also dismissed the same. It could therefore be seen that in respect of vacancies which had arisen after 1/1/1996 and before 3/6/1997, the appointments could have been made only under the UGC scheme. However, their entitlement for UGC Scale of pay would arise only if they were qualified to be appointed as per the qualification criteria prescribed by UGC. In respect of the appointment of lecturers in posts where the vacancy had arisen after 3/6/1997, they will not be entitled to claim that their WA No.1999/18 & conn.cases -:42:- appointments were under the UGC Scheme as there was a restriction for appointment of teachers for a specified period.
16. Therefore, the crux of the aforesaid discussion would indicate that petitioners who were appointed to vacancies that had arisen between 1/01/1996 and 3/6/1997 and were qualified to be appointed as Lecturers as per the UGC Regulations should have been placed under the UGC Scale of pay. Those Lecturers who were appointed in vacancies that had arisen after 3/6/1997 in substantive vacancies and qualified to become lecturers as per the UGC Regulations will also be entitled to the UGC Scale of pay. Those Lecturers who were appointed after 3/6/1997 and not in substantive vacancies and those lecturers who were not qualified as per UGC Regulations will not be entitled for the benefit of UGC scale of pay.
17. Having said so, it could be seen that all these writ petitions were filed after a substantially long period. All the petitioners were given a higher scale of pay as per UGC Scheme after a specified period, i.e., after 6 years of continuing as Lecturers. They did not chose to make any claim for the last several years. There is considerable laches on the part of the WA No.1999/18 & conn.cases -:43:- petitioners in claiming the benefits over a period of time. It is settled law that when writ petitions are filed invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus, it ought to be filed within a reasonable time. In so far as the petitioners had been keeping quiet for a considerably long period, it is not appropriate for a writ Court to direct payment to be given after more than 20 years from the date on which the claim had arisen. The position of law has been well settled in Union of India and Others v. Tarsem Singh [(2008) 8 SCC 648]. The question considered was whether the claim raised in the said case amounted to 'continuing wrong'. It is held that 'continuing wrong' refers to a single wrong which causes a continuing injury. The principle of recurring/successive wrongs were also dealt with and it is said to be wrongs which occur periodically, each wrong giving rise to a separate and distinct cause of action. Even in service matters, such issues arise for consideration.
18. In fact, in Tarsem Singh's case (supra), the petitioner while working in Indian Army was invalidated from Army service on 13/11/1983. In 1999, he approached the High Court seeking disability pension. Writ petition was allowed by a WA No.1999/18 & conn.cases -:44:- learned Single Judge. However, regarding arrears, the relief was restricted to 38 months prior to the filing of the writ petition. The petitioner dissatisfied with the same sought for disability arrears from 13/11/1983 and preferred an appeal before the Division Bench which was allowed. The respondents carried the matter before the Apex Court in which the question considered was whether the High Court was justified in directing payment of arrears for a period of 16 years instead of restricting it to 3 years. The Apex Court allowed the appeal and order of the Division Bench directing payment of disability pension from the date which fell due, was set aside. Paragraphs 4 to 7 are relevant which reads as under:-
"4. The principles underlying continuing wrongs and recurring/successive wrongs have been applied to service law disputes. A "continuing wrong" refers to a single wrongful act which causes a continuing injury. "Recurring/successive wrongs" are those which occur periodically, each wrong giving rise to a distinct and separate cause of action. This Court in Balakrishna Savalram Pujari Waghmare v. Shree Dhyaneshwar Maharaj Sansthan [AIR 1959 SC 798] explained the concept of continuing wrong (in the context of Section 23 of the Limitation Act, 1908 corresponding to Section 22 of the Limitation Act, 1963): (AIR p. 807, para 31) WA No.1999/18 & conn.cases -:45:- "31. ... It is the very essence of a continuing wrong that it is an act which creates a continuing source of injury and renders the doer of the act responsible and liable for the continuance of the said injury. If the wrongful act causes an injury which is complete, there is no continuing wrong even though the damage resulting from the act may continue. If, however, a wrongful act is of such a character that the injury caused by it itself continues, then the act constitutes a continuing wrong. In this connection, it is necessary to draw a distinction between the injury caused by the wrongful act and what may be described as the effect of the said injury."
5. In M.R. Gupta v. Union of India [(1995) 5 SCC 628 :
1995 SCC (L&S) 1273 : (1995) 31 ATC 186] the appellant approached the High Court in 1989 with a grievance in regard to his initial pay fixation with effect from 1-8- 1978. The claim was rejected as it was raised after 11 years. This Court applied the principles of continuing wrong and recurring wrongs and reversed the decision. This Court held: (SCC pp. 629-30, para 5) "5. ... The appellant's grievance that his pay fixation was not in accordance with the rules, was the assertion of a continuing wrong against him which gave rise to a recurring cause of action each time he was paid a salary which was not computed in accordance with the rules. So long as the appellant is in service, a fresh cause of action arises every month when he is paid his monthly salary on the basis of a wrong computation made contrary to rules.
It is no doubt true that if the appellant's claim is found correct on merits, he would be entitled to be paid according to the properly fixed pay scale in the future WA No.1999/18 & conn.cases -:46:- and the question of limitation would arise for recovery of the arrears for the past period. In other words, the appellant's claim, if any, for recovery of arrears calculated on the basis of difference in the pay which has become time-barred would not be recoverable, but he would be entitled to proper fixation of his pay in accordance with rules and to cessation of a continuing wrong if on merits his claim is justified. Similarly, any other consequential relief claimed by him, such as, promotion, etc., would also be subject to the defence of laches, etc. to disentitle him to those reliefs. The pay fixation can be made only on the basis of the situation existing on 1-8-1978 without taking into account any other consequential relief which may be barred by his laches and the bar of limitation. It is to this limited extent of proper pay fixation, the application cannot be treated as time-barred...."
6. In Shiv Dass v. Union of India [(2007) 9 SCC 274 :
(2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 395] this Court held: (SCC p. 277, paras 8 & 10) "8. ... The High Court does not ordinarily permit a belated resort to the extraordinary remedy because it is likely to cause confusion and public inconvenience and bring in its train new injustices, and if writ jurisdiction is exercised after unreasonable delay, it may have the effect of inflicting not only hardship and inconvenience but also injustice on third parties. It was pointed out that when writ jurisdiction is invoked, unexplained delay coupled with the creation of third-party rights in the meantime is an important factor which also weighs with the High Court in deciding whether or not to exercise WA No.1999/18 & conn.cases -:47:- such jurisdiction.
*** In the case of pension the cause of action actually continues from month to month. That, however, cannot be a ground to overlook delay in filing the petition. ... If petition is filed beyond a reasonable period say three years normally the Court would reject the same or restrict the relief which could be granted to a reasonable period of about three years."
7. To summarise, normally, a belated service related claim will be rejected on the ground of delay and laches (where remedy is sought by filing a writ petition) or limitation (where remedy is sought by an application to the Administrative Tribunal). One of the exceptions to the said rule is cases relating to a continuing wrong. Where a service related claim is based on a continuing wrong, relief can be granted even if there is a long delay in seeking remedy, with reference to the date on which the continuing wrong commenced, if such continuing wrong creates a continuing source of injury. But there is an exception to the exception. If the grievance is in respect of any order or administrative decision which related to or affected several others also, and if the reopening of the issue would affect the settled rights of third parties, then the claim will not be entertained. For example, if the issue relates to payment or refixation of pay or pension, relief may be granted in spite of delay as it does not affect the rights of third parties. But if the claim involved issues relating to seniority or promotion, etc., affecting others, delay would render the claim stale and doctrine of laches/limitation will be applied. Insofar as WA No.1999/18 & conn.cases -:48:- the consequential relief of recovery of arrears for a past period is concerned, the principles relating to recurring/successive wrongs will apply. As a consequence, the High Courts will restrict the consequential relief relating to arrears normally to a period of three years prior to the date of filing of the writ petition."
19. In the case on hand, the petitioners' claim was for fixation of pay from the date of appointment until the date till they were all given UGC Scale of pay. The claims were hopelessly barred by limitation. No valid reason had been stated in the writ petitions to condone the delay. Even otherwise, the claim was not at all a continuing wrong. Merely for the reason that they were in service does not indicate that they could approach this Court for pay fixation after two decades.
20. Under such circumstances, there is justification on the part of the State and its authorities in impugning the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge on the ground of delay, which has to be sustained. Learned Single Judge however did not advert to the aforesaid issue at all.
WA No.1999/18 & conn.cases -:49:-
21. In the above circumstances, we are of the view that the appeals are to be allowed on the ground that the claim is highly belated.
Accordingly, the appeals are allowed.
Sd/-
A.M.SHAFFIQUE JUDGE Sd/-
T.V.ANILKUMAR
Rp True Copy JUDGE
PS to Judge