Kerala High Court
Abraham J. Puthumana vs State Of Kerala on 2 April, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 KER 179
Bench: K.Vinod Chandran, V.G.Arun
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
TUESDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF APRIL 2019 / 12TH CHAITHRA, 1941
W.A.No.791 of 2019
AGAINST THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 12.03.2019 IN WP(C).7267/2019
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
APPELLANT/WRIT PETITIONER:
ABRAHAM J. PUTHUMANA, AGED 57 YEARS,
FINANCE OFFICER (DEEMED TO HAVE VACATED OFFICE AS PER
THE IMPUGNED ORDINANCE),
MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSINI HILLS P.O.,
KOTTAYAM-686 560,
RESIDING AT: FINANCE OFFICER'S QUARTERS,
UNIVERSITY CAMPUS, PRIYADARSINI HILLS P.O., KOTTAYAM-
686 560.
BY ADVS.
SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
SRI.DEEPU LAL MOHAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2 LAW SECRETARY,
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
LAW (LEGISLATION-G) DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
3 MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR (IN CHARGE),
PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM-686 560.
4 THE VICE CHANCELLOR (IN CHARGE)
MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSINI HILLS,
ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM-686 560.
W.A.791 of 2019 & - 2 -
connected cases
5 THE SYNDICATE, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY,
REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIR PERSON,
PRIYADARSINI HILLS, ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM-686 560.
6 THE CHANCELLOR,
MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERISTY, RAJ BHAVAN,
VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695099.
BY ADVS.
R3 - R5 BY SRI.ASOK M.CHERIAN, SC, M.G. UNIVERSITY.
R6 BY SRI.K.JAJU BABU (SR.) &
SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI, STANDING COUNSEL.
OTHER PRESENT:
R1 & R2 BY SRI C.P SUDHAKARA PRASAD, ADV.GENERAL,
I/B.SRI V. MANU, SR. GP.
SRI SHYAM KRISHNAN
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.03.2019,
ALONG WITH WA.792/2019, WA.795/2019, WA.796/2019, WA.798/2019,
WP(C).7267/2019, WP(C).7388/2019, WP(C).7416/2019,
WP(C).7431/2019, WP(C).7435/2019, THE COURT ON 02.04.2019
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.791 of 2019 & - 3 -
connected cases
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
TUESDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF APRIL 2019 / 12TH CHAITHRA, 1941
WA.No.792 of 2019
AGAINST THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 12.03.2019 IN WP(C).7416/2019
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
DR.V.V.GEORGEKUTTY, AGED 56 YEARS,
CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT,
THENHIPALAM, MALAPPURAM.
BY ADVS.
SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.)
SMT.NISHA GEORGE
SRI.ARUN CHANDRAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPRAM-695001.
2 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
3 THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, THENHIPALAM,
MALAPPURAM-676635.
BY ADVS.
R1 & R2 BY SRI.C.P.SUDHAKARA PRASAD, ADV.GENERAL &
I/B. SRI.V.MANU, SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER.
SRI.SHYAM KRISHNAN
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.03.2019,
ALONG WITH WA.798/2019, WP(C).7388/2019, WP(C).7416/2019,
WP(C).7431/2019, WP(C).7435/2019, WP(C).7267/2019, WA.796/2019,
WA.795/2019, WA.791/2019, THE COURT ON 02.04.2019 DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.791 of 2019 & - 4 -
connected cases
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
TUESDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF APRIL 2019 / 12TH CHAITHRA, 1941
W.A.No.795 of 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 12.03.2019 IN W.P(C).7435/2019
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
DR.BALACHANDRAN KEEZHOTH, AGED 53 YEARS,
S/O. P.KANNAN MASTER,
DEEMGOOD, PALLIKUNNU P.O., KANNUR-670 004
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.K.IBRAHIM
SMT.K.P.AMBIKA
SRI.A.L.NAVANEETH KRISHNAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
2 THE SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF LAW (LEGISLATION-G),
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001
3 THE KANNUR UNIVERSITY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, CIVIL STATION P.O.,
THAVAKKARA, KANNUR-670001.
W.A.791 of 2019 & - 5 -
connected cases
4 THE SYNDICATE, THE KANNUR UNIVERSITY,
CIVIL STATION P.O., THAVAKKARA, KANNUR-670001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
BY ADVS.
R1 & R2 BY SRI.C.P.SUDHAKARA PRASAD, ADV.GENERAL
I/B. SRI.V.MANU, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER.
R3 & R4 BY SRI.M.SASINDRAN, SC, KANNUR UNIVERSITY
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.03.2019, ALONG
WITH WA.798/2019, WP(C).7388/2019, WP(C).7416/2019,
WP(C).7431/2019, WP(C).7435/2019, WP(C).7267/2019, WA.796/2019,
WA.792/2019, WA.791/2019, THE COURT ON 02.04.2019 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:-
W.A.791 of 2019 & - 6 -
connected cases
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
TUESDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF APRIL 2019 / 12TH CHAITHRA, 1941
WA.No. 796 of 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 12/03/2019 IN WP(C).7388/2019
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
THOMAS JOHN.M., AGED 59 YEARS, SON OF JOHN THOMAS,
CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS,
MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PD HILLS,
P.O.ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,
(RESIDING AT MAMBRA HOUSE, NEAR KSRTC BUS STAND,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689645.)
BY ADVS.
SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED
SRI.M.SAJJAD
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2 THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
HIGHER EDUCATIONAL DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
3 THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
LAW DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
4 THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, PD HILLS,
P.O.ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686562.
5 THE SYNDICATE OF MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY,
W.A.791 of 2019 & - 7 -
connected cases
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN THE VICE CHANCELLOR,
PD HILLS, P.O.ATHIRAMPUZHA,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686562.
6 THE REGISTRAR,
MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PD HILLS,
P.O.ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686562.
BY ADVS.
R1 TO R3 BY SRI.C.P.SUDHAKARA PRASAD, ADV. GENERAL,
I/B.SRI.V.MANU, SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER.
R4 TO R6 BY SRI.ASOK M.CHERIAN, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.03.2019,
ALONG WITH WA.798/2019, WP(C).7388/2019, WP(C).7416/2019,
WP(C).7431/2019, WP(C).7435/2019, WP(C).7267/2019, WA.795/2019,
WA.792/2019, WA.791/2019, THE COURT ON 02.04.2019 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:-
W.A.791 of 2019 & - 8 -
connected cases
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
TUESDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF APRIL 2019 / 12TH CHAITHRA, 1941
W.A.No.798 of 2019
AGAINST THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 12.03.2019 IN WP(C).7431/2019
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
DR.ABDUL MAJEED T.A., AGED 48 YEARS,
SON OF LATE ABDUL RAHIMAN HAJI,
REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT,
RESIDING AT B1 QUARTERS, POST CALICUT UNIVERSITY,
THENJHPALAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-673 635
BY ADVS.
SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED
SRI.M.SAJJAD
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001
2 THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
HIGHER EDUCATIONAL DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001
3 THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
LAW DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001
4 THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR,
POST CALICUT UNIVERSITY, THENHIPALAM,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-673 635
W.A.791 of 2019 & - 9 -
connected cases
5 THE SYNDICATE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, THE VICE CHANCELLOR,
POST CALICUT UNIVERSITY, THENHIPALAM,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-673 635
6 THE VICE CHANCELLOR,
UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, POST CALICUT UNIVERSITY,
THENHIPALAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-673 635
R1 TO R3 BY SRI.C.P.SUDHAKARA PRASAD, ADV.GENERAL,
I/B. SRI.V.MANU, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER.
R4 TO R6 BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, STANDING COUNSEL.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.03.2019,
ALONG WITH WP(C).7388/2019, WP(C).7416/2019, WP(C).7431/2019,
WP(C).7435/2019, WP(C).7267/2019, WA.796/2019, WA.795/2019,
WA.792/2019, WA.791/2019, THE COURT ON 02.04.2019 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.A.791 of 2019 & - 10 -
connected cases
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
TUESDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF APRIL 2019 / 12TH CHAITHRA, 1941
W.P(C).No.7267 of 2019
PETITIONER/S:
ABRAHAM.J.PUTHUMANA, AGED 57 YEARS,
FINANCE OFFICER,
(DEEMED TO HAVE VACATED OFFICE AS PER THE IMPUGNED
ORDINANCE),
MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSINI HILLS P.O.,
KOTTAYAM 686 560,
RESIDING AT FINANCE OFFICERS QUARTERS,
UNIVERSITY CAMPUS, PRIYADARSINI HILLS P.O.,
KOTTAYAM 686 560.
BY ADVS.
SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
SRI.DEEPU LAL MOHAN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.
2 LAW SECRETARY,
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
LAW (LEGISLATION-G), DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.
3 MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR (IN CHARGE),
PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM 686 560.
4 THE VICE CHANCELLOR (IN CHARGE),
MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSINI HILLS,
ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM 686 560.
W.A.791 of 2019 & - 11 -
connected cases
5 THE SYNDICATE,
MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY,
REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIR PERSON,
PRIYADARSINI HILLS, ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM 686 560.
6 THE CHANCELLOR,
MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, RAJ BHAVAN,
VALLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 099.
BY ADVS.
R1 & R2 BY SRI.C.P.SUDHAKARA PRASAD, ADV.GENERAL,
I/B. SRI.V.MANU, SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER
R3 TO R5 BY SRI.ASOK M.CHERIAN, SC, M.G. UNIVERSITY
R6 BY SRI.K.JAJU BABU (SR.) &
SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI, COUNSEL FOR THE CHANCELLOR
OF UNIVERSITIES IN KERALA.
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI SHYAM KRISHNAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
21.03.2019, ALONG WITH WA.798/2019, WP(C).7388/2019,
WP(C).7416/2019, WP(C).7431/2019, WP(C).7435/2019, WA.796/2019,
WA.795/2019, WA.792/2019, WA.791/2019, THE COURT ON 02.04.2019
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.791 of 2019 & - 12 -
connected cases
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
TUESDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF APRIL 2019 / 12TH CHAITHRA, 1941
WP(C).No.7388 of 2019
PETITIONER/S:
THOMAS JOHN M., AGED 59 YEARS, SON OF JOHN THOMAS,
CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS,
MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PD HILLS,
P.O.ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,
RESIDING AT MAMBRA HOUSE, NEAR KSRTC BUS STAND,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 689 645.
BY ADVS.
SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED
SRI.M.SAJJAD
SMT.P.A.JENZIA
SRI.V.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
2 THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
HIGHER EDUCATIONAL DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
3 THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
LAW DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
4 THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, PD HILLS,
P.O.ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 562.
W.A.791 of 2019 & - 13 -
connected cases
5 THE SYNDICATE OF MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN THE VICE CHANCELLOR,
PD HILLS, P.O.ATHIRAMPUZHA,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 685 562.
6 THE REGISTRAR, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY,
PD HILLS, P.O.ATHIRAMPUZHA,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 562.
BY ADVS.
R1 TO R3 BY SRI.C.P.SUDHAKARA PRASAD, ADV.GENERAL,
I/B. SRI.V.MANU, SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER.
R4 TO R6 BY SRI.ASOK M.CHERIAN, SC, M.G. UNIVERSITY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
21.03.2019, ALONG WITH WA.798/2019, WP(C).7416/2019,
WP(C).7431/2019, WP(C).7435/2019, WP(C).7267/2019, WA.796/2019,
WA.795/2019, WA.792/2019, WA.791/2019, THE COURT ON 02.04.2019
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.791 of 2019 & - 14 -
connected cases
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
TUESDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF APRIL 2019 / 12TH CHAITHRA, 1941
WP(C).No.7416 of 2019
PETITIONER/S:
DR.V.V.GEORGEKUTTY, AGED 56 YEARS,
CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT,
THENHIPALAM, MALAPPURAM.
BY ADVS.
SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.)
SMT.NISHA GEORGE
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
3 THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, THENHIPALAM,
MALAPPURAM.
R1 & R2 BY SRI.C.P.SUDHAKARA PRASAD, ADV.GENERAL,
I/B. SRI.V.MANU, SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER.
R3 BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, STANDING COUNSEL.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
21.03.2019, ALONG WITH WA.798/2019, WP(C).7388/2019,
WP(C).7431/2019, WP(C).7435/2019, WP(C).7267/2019, WA.796/2019,
WA.795/2019, WA.792/2019, WA.791/2019, THE COURT ON 02.04.2019
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.791 of 2019 & - 15 -
connected cases
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
TUESDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF APRIL 2019 / 12TH CHAITHRA, 1941
WP(C).No.7431 of 2019
PETITIONER/S:
DR.ABDUL MAJEED T.A., AGED 48 YEARS,
SON OF LATE ABDUL RAHIMAN HAJI,
REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT,
RESIDING AT B1 QUARTERS, POST CALICUT UNIVERSITY,
THENHIPALAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-673635.
BY ADVS.
SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED
SRI.M.SAJJAD
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2 THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
HIGHER EDUCATIONAL DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
3 THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
LAW DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
4 THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR,
POST CALICUT UNIVERSITY, THENHIPALAM,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-673635.
W.A.791 of 2019 & - 16 -
connected cases
5 THE SYNDICATE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, THE VICE CHANCELLOOR,
POST CALICUT UNIVERSITY, THENHIPALAM,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-675635.
6 THE VICE CHANCELLOR,
UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, POST CALICUT UNIVERSITY,
THENHIPALAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-673635.
BY ADVS.
R1 TO R3 BY SRI.C.P.SUDHAKARA PRASAD, ADV.GENERAL,
I/B.SRI.V.MANU, SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER
R4 TO R6 BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, STANDING COUNSEL.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
21.03.2019, ALONG WITH WA.798/2019, WP(C).7388/2019,
WP(C).7416/2019, WP(C).7435/2019, WP(C).7267/2019, WA.796/2019,
WA.795/2019, WA.792/2019, WA.791/2019, THE COURT ON 02.04.2019
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.791 of 2019 & - 17 -
connected cases
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
TUESDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF APRIL 2019 / 12TH CHAITHRA, 1941
W.P(C).No.7435 of 2019
PETITIONER/S:
DR.BALACHANDRAN KEEZHOTH, AGED 53 YEARS,
S/O. P.KANNAN MASTER,
DEEMGOOD, PALLIKUNNU P.O., KANNUR-670 004.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.K.IBRAHIM
SMT.K.P.AMBIKA
SRI.A.L.NAVANEETH KRISHNAN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY.
2 THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LAW (LEGISLATION-G),
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
3 THE KANNUR UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR,
CIVIL STATION P.O., THAVAKKARA, KANNUR-670 002.
4 THE SYNDICATE, THE KANNUR UNIVERSITY,
CIVIL STATION P.O., THAVAKKARA, KANNUR-670 002,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
BY ADVS.
R1 & R2 BY SRI.C.P.SUDHAKARA PRASAD, ADV.GENERAL,
I/B.SRI.V.MANU, SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER.
R4 BY SRI.M.SASINDRAN, SC, KANNUR UNIVERSITY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
21.03.2019, ALONG WITH WA.798/2019, WP(C).7388/2019,
WP(C).7416/2019, WP(C).7431/2019, WP(C).7267/2019, WA.796/2019,
WA.795/2019, WA.792/2019, WA.791/2019, THE COURT ON 02.04.2019
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.791 of 2019 & - 18 -
connected cases
"C.R."
JUDGMENT
[ WA 791/2019, WA.792/2019, WA.795/2019, WA.796/2019, WA.798/2019, WP(C).7267/2019, WP(C).7388/2019, WP(C).7416/2019, WP(C).7431/2019, WP(C).7435/2019 ] Vinod Chandran,J.
In controversy, is an Ordinance, which abruptly terminated the services of the appellants-writ petitioners who were occupying the posts of Registrar, Controller of Examinations and Finance Officer in the Mahatma Gandhi, Calicut and Kannur Universities. The appeals were filed from an order of the learned Single Judge, wherein the proceedings pursuant to the Ordinance were made subject to the result of the writ petitions. The appellants were aggrieved with the refusal of the learned Single Judge to stay the operation of the Ordinance and permit the appellants to continue in service. Especially considering the fact that a consideration of the Writ Appeal would in effect result in the consideration of the entire subject matter, we, with the consent of the parties, called for the writ petitions itself to be heard. We directed the pleadings to be completed, which has been done. In such circumstances, we feel it appropriate to dispose of the matter finally.
W.A.791 of 2019 & - 19 -
connected cases
2. We have heard learned Senior Counsel
Sri.George Poonthottam, learned Counsel Sri.P.K.Ibrahim,
Sri.V.A.Muhammed, Sri.Murali Purushothaman and Sri.Shyam
Krishnan appearing for the petitioners. The learned
Advocate General addressed arguments on behalf of the State and Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, Sri.M.Sasindran and Sri.Asok M.Cherian appearing on behalf of the Universities supported the State. Sri.Jaju Babu, Senior counsel represented the Chancellor.
3. Sri.George Poonthottam appearing for the Controller of Examinations of the Calicut University argues that the Ordinance is a clear abuse of the constitutional powers; for it being intended only at replacement of the Registrar of Kannur University, whose suspension has been interfered with by this Court directing reinstatement. Only to ensure that there is no allegation raised of a 'one man legislation', the Ordinance targeted all the crucial officers of certain Universities. Though no mala fides can be alleged against the Legislature, it is urged that there is an abuse of power, insofar as invocation of Article 213, actuated by extraneous reasons and there can be inferred a constitutional fraud as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2017) 3 SCC 1 [Krishna Kumar Singh & W.A.791 of 2019 & - 20 -
connected cases Another v. State of Bihar & Others]. It is pointed out that as per Exhibit P9 produced in W.P.(C) No.7416 of 2019, it is clear that the Legislative Assembly was in session from 25.01.2019 to 12.02.2019. Even as per the counter affidavit filed by the State, the Ordinance was issued pursuant to a recommendation of the Kerala State Higher Education Council [for brevity "Council"] as early as on 17.01.2019. The Government has thought it fit not to place the recommendations in the form of a Bill before the Legislative Assembly and has, after the session concluded; then acting in haste, brought out the Ordinance on 06.03.2019. It is also pointed out that the Ordinance has been brought out at a crucial time when the Universities are scheduled to hold the annual examinations. The change in the Administrative Officers of the University, especially those at the pinnacle, enjoined with the duty of conducting examinations, would put the examination exercise into jeopardy. It is also argued that the Government had already taken a decision on 29.08.2014 to enhance the retirement age of the statutory officers of the Universities in the State as provided in the University Grants Commission Regulations of 1998 [for brevity "UGC Regulations"] to 60 years from the existing 56 years, as is W.A.791 of 2019 & - 21 -
connected cases evidenced from Exhibit P7. The said decision was taken by the Government which was in office then, and the Ordinance is only an attempt by the incumbent Government to interfere with the earlier decision taken, apparently with oblique motives. A Full Bench decision of this Court in Radhakrishnan Pillai v. T.D.B. [2016 (2) KLT 245 (FB)] is relied on to contend that when the Government has adopted Regulations of the UGC, then there cannot be a reduction in the retirement age, adversely affecting the service of the petitioners. This again fortifies the contention raised of the Ordinance being motivated only by reason of change of Government. Reliance is also placed on an unreported decision of this Court in W.A.No.783 of 1997 dated 11.07.1997 [Dr.A.M.Michael v. Kerala Agricultural University]; allegedly in an identical situation when the service conditions of the Vice-Chancellor of an University was sought to be varied during the course of his tenure. The amendments made to the statute were struck down by a Division Bench.
4. Sri.P.K.Ibrahim appears for the Registrar of the Kannur University. The reliefs sought, are specifically pointed out, which are (i) a declaration that Section 10 of the Ordinance is ultra vires the Kannur University Act and W.A.791 of 2019 & - 22 -
connected cases the Kannur University First Statutes, 1998 and (ii) a declaration that the amendment to Section 14 of the Kannur University Act has only prospective effect; not affecting the service conditions of the petitioner who was appointed earlier and who has to be regulated by the unamended provisions of the Act and the Statutes. It is argued that the petitioner had left the service of an aided college, where he was Head of the Department, and if he had continued there, he would have had a further period of three years service. It is contended that Section 10 of the Ordinance is ultra vires the Act and the provision, if at all sustained, can only have prospective application insofar as regulating the services of a candidate who is appointed after the petitioner's retirement at the age of
60. After appointment as the Registrar, the petitioner has a vested right to continue till the date of his retirement as existing at the time of his appointment. Even a retrospective legislation cannot take away a vested right and here the Ordinance can only be prospective. By Section 14 of the Kannur University Act, as it existed at the time of his appointment, the post of Registrar is a whole-time salaried officer appointed by the Syndicate for such period and on such terms and conditions as may be prescribed by W.A.791 of 2019 & - 23 -
connected cases the Statutes. The Statutes specifically prescribed the age of retirement of a Registrar to be 55 years, which was altered by the Government, as a policy, adopting the UGC Regulations; which prescribed the age of retirement to be 60. (2008) 12 SCC 112 [State of Punjab & Others v. Bhajan Kaur & Others] and (2008) 1 SCC 391 [Sangam Spinners v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner- I] are placed reliance on to buttress the contention that the right of a party must be determined on the basis of the Statute which was applicable at the relevant time. (1994) 5 SCC 450 [Union of India & Others v. Tushar Ranjan Mohanty & Others] is relied upon to contend that a new legislation cannot nullify a right vested in a person under the Statute or the Constitution. The learned Counsel would also raise the ground of discrimination insofar as the petitioner being a non-teaching staff, whose tenure has been restricted by the Ordinance while the other non-teaching staff of the University continue upto the retirement age of 56 years. It is urged, the Ordinance interferes with the right to livelihood of the petitioner and violates Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
5. Sri.V.A.Muhammed has made submissions on behalf of the Registrar, University of Calicut and the Controller W.A.791 of 2019 & - 24 -
connected cases of Examinations, M.G.University. Both the petitioners are persons who got themselves relieved from their teaching assignments in aided colleges for the purpose of taking up administrative posts in the respective Universities. It is argued that the retirement age is prescribed by the Statutes of the University and the power of the State Government is only to frame the First Statutes at the time of inception of the University. When the Syndicate becomes functional, the role of the State Government is only to make amendments as suggested by the Syndicate and there cannot be Statutes made repeatedly for the Universities or amendments carried out therein. Reliance is placed on (1994) 5 SCC 479 [All Kerala Private College Teachers' Association v. Nair Service Society and Others] to further advance the above contention.
6. Sri.Murali Purushothaman projects the plight of his client, who is a Chartered Accountant and was employed with the Kerala State Financial Enterprises; who resigned his job, to take up the responsibility of Finance Officer of a University. It is argued that though at the time of the petitioner's appointment, the retirement age of Finance Officer was 55; it was later enhanced to 56 as per Exhibit P4. Exhibit P4 is an amendment to the W.A.791 of 2019 & - 25 -
connected cases M.G.University Statutes, prescribing the age of retirement as 56 years or "as amended from time to time by the State Government" (sic). Exhibit P5 adopts the age of 60 years as the retirement age for Registrar, Controller of Examinations and Finance Officer of the Universities, who are termed the "statutory officers". On such adoption by the State Government by virtue of the specific clause in Exhibit P4, which incorporates amendments from time to time made by the State Government in the First Statutes, the petitioner has to be continued till he reaches the age of 60 years. Section 23 of the M.G.University Act, dealing with powers of the Syndicate, is referred to and Clause (xxvii) is specifically pointed out, which empowers the Syndicate to prescribe, with the previous concurrence of the Government, the terms and conditions of service of the employees of the University. The Syndicate has so prescribed the age of retirement, at the time of his appointment as 55 and later enhanced to 56 and by virtue of the Government's adoption of the UGC Regulations further enhanced to 60. Without an amendment to the Statutes, there can be no reduction in the age of retirement by an amendment to the M.G.University Act. It is also pointed out that the Syndicate on the basis of Exhibit P5 adoption of W.A.791 of 2019 & - 26 -
connected cases 60 years as age of retirement, by the Government, has proposed amendments to the Statutes, which is pending before the Chancellor. The Ordinance hence, is incompetent to abruptly terminate the services of the petitioner. It is also pointed out that the UGC Regulations of 2010 have been made in pursuance of the directions of the Government of India that the age of superannuation shall continue to be 62 years for Registrar and equivalent posts. The Regulations of 2010 has to be inferred to have prescribed such a mandate, as has been found by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2015) 8 SCC 129 [P.Suseela & Others v. University Grants Commission & Others].
7. Sri.Shyam Krishnan, learned Counsel appearing for another similarly situated petitioner, was also heard in the matter. The said petitioner was identically situated, but had not filed a Writ Appeal, when we called for the writ petitions in the present Appeals. However, today an appeal was moved, and notice was taken by the official respondents. The Standing Counsel for the University, a different University from that in these appeals, sought time and hence, the same has been adjourned for two weeks. However, since the decision in these cases would regulate the outcome of that appeal also, we deemed W.A.791 of 2019 & - 27 -
connected cases it fit to permit the learned Counsel to make submissions with respect to the controversy which is common in all the writ petitions. The learned Counsel would urge that the Ordinance is clearly discriminatory insofar as many Universities have been excluded from its purview. The learned Counsel would also stress on the principle of 'legitimate expectation' and rely on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, to assail the Ordinance as intended at upsetting the tenure of a single person; reported in AIR 1967 SC 1305 [Dinnapati Sadasiva Reddi, Vice- Chancellor, Osmania University v. Chancellor, Osmania University & Others] and (2008) 5 SCC 1 [P.Venugopal v. Union of India].
8. Sri.C.P.Sudhakara Prasad, learned Advocate General addressed arguments in support of the Ordinance. It is pointed out that there can be no mala fides alleged on the Legislature nor on the Governor, who acts on behalf of the Legislature, when it is not in session; that too on the advice of the Council of Ministers invoking Article 213 of the Constitution of India. It is also pointed out that none of the petitioners can put forth the contention of 'legitimate expectation' or argue that their right to livelihood have been curtailed for reason only of their post being made a tenure post in the best interest of the W.A.791 of 2019 & - 28 -
connected cases Universities. It is pointed out that the posts of Vice-Chancellor and Pro-Vice-Chancellor already are tenure posts. The State Higher Education Council had made certain recommendations, which intended at bringing in uniformity with respect to the service conditions of statutory officers of the University. The posts of Registrar, Controller of Examinations and Finance Officer cannot be equated with a non-teaching staff of the University especially when the mode of appointment and the service conditions are separately prescribed in the Act and Statutes. These are officers of the University, handling crucial duties, enjoined with critical functions and are a separate class of statutory officers of the University; in which common class is included the Vice-Chancellor and Pro-Vice-Chancellor also. The Government is proposing amendments to make the posts 'tenure posts' in all the Universities and has, by the subject Ordinance, first attempted it in four Universities. There can, hence, be no claim or allegation of discrimination (i) on the basis of some of the Universities not being included in the Ordinance or (ii) on the ground of retirement age of non-teaching staff in the Universities.
W.A.791 of 2019 & - 29 - connected cases
9. The learned Advocate General has relied on the decision in AIR 1977 SC 1146 [The Vice- Chancellor, Jammu University v. Dushinant Kumar Rampal] to contend that when a statute has been amended altering conditions of service, the employee would be guided by the amended provisions. The decision in AIR 1965 SC 1567 [Bishun Narain Misra v. State of U.P. and Others] was cited to contend that termination of service resulting from change in age of superannuation did not amount to removal within the meaning of Article
311. Reliance is placed on (1976) 2 SCC 502 [N.Lakshmana Rao v. State of Karnataka], wherein it was held that there is no constitutional limitation to reduce the age of retirement. A Full Bench decision of this Court in AIR 1968 Kerala 158 [N.Srinivasan, Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Quilon & Another v. State of Kerala] is pressed into service to contend that mala fides cannot be a ground to challenge a legislation and the only fetter as regards a legislation is lack of legislative power and violation of Part III of the Constitution; that, reduction of age of retirement does not amount to any discrimination and that amendment of a statute cannot be said to be ultra vires some provision of the statute itself. In the decision reported in 1992 Supp (3) SCC 191 [T.P.George & Others v.
W.A.791 of 2019 & - 30 - connected cases
State of Kerala & Others] it was found that when adopting the terms of the UGC Scheme, it was competent for the State to have prescribed a different age of superannuation. The decision in (2007) 11 SCC 58 [B.Bharat Kumar & Others v. Osmania University & Others] was also cited by the learned Advocate General to contend that the State Government was not bound to raise the age of superannuation in accordance with the UGC Scheme. In support of the contention that final decision to enhance age of superannuation of teachers would be on the State irrespective of UGC Regulations, reliance was placed on the decision in (2013) 8 SCC 633 [Jagdish Prasad Sharma & Others v. State of Bihar & Others]. A decision of this Court, reported in 2011 (2) KLT 468 [Mathai M.M. v. Elizabeth Xavier & Others], has been cited to contend that the UGC does not have any power to prescribe the age of retirement. In support of the contention that irrespective of UGC Regulations the State can fix retirement age, reliance is placed on unreported decisions of this Court in W.A.No.734 of 2016 & connected case, dated 13.12.2017 [Dr.J.Vijayan & Others v. State of Kerala & Others] and W.A.No.1283 of 2016 & connected cases, dated 07.11.2016 [Harikumar S. & Others v. State of Kerala & Others]. To urge that the State Legislature has W.A.791 of 2019 & - 31 -
connected cases competence to change conditions of service with retrospective effect, support is garnered from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (1976) 4 SCC 750 [N.Saksena v. State of Madhya Pradesh]. The decision of the Apex Court in AIR 1992 SC 1277 [State of H.P. & Another v. Kailash Chand Mahajan & Others] was relied on to argue that mala fides cannot be attributed to the Legislature; age limit can be prescribed for a tenure post; the Court is least concerned with the wisdom of the policy of the State regarding the age of superannuation and prescribing such an outer age limit is perfectly legal; legitimate expectation cannot preclude legislation; and, even if there is a legislation prescribing age of superannuation which is relating to a single person, there is nothing wrong, when the avowed policy of the State is to prescribe an age of superannuation based on reasonable criteria in implementation of a valid policy. And for the proposition that Legislature cannot be accused of passing the law on the ground of mala fides and mala fides cannot be alleged against the Governor for promulgating an Ordinance because he is exercising a legislative function in accordance with Article 213, reliance is placed on the decision in AIR 1998 Kar. 210 = 1998 KHC 2145 [State of Karnataka & Another v.
W.A.791 of 2019 & - 32 - connected cases B.A.Hasanabha & Others]. Relying on (2004) 1 SCC 712
[Dharam Dutt & Others v. Union of India & Others], it is argued, the Apex Court has held that doctrine of colourable legislation does not involve question of mala fides against Legislature and only involves legislative competency and violation of fundamental rights. The decision in 1985 KLT 344 = 1985 KHC 81 [Vasudevan & Others v. State of Kerala & Others] was cited to contend that promulgation of an Ordinance has to be on the subjective satisfaction of the Governor, not justiciable in a Court of law. It is argued that in (1974) 4 SCC 827 [S.K.G.Sugar Ltd. v. State of Bihar & Others] the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the satisfaction of the Governor regarding existence of circumstances necessitating an Ordinance is not justiciable on the ground of error of judgment or otherwise and in Krishna Kumar Singh (supra) it has been held that subjective satisfaction of Governor regarding promulgation of an Ordinance is subject to judicial review only when the exercise of power is based on extraneous ground and there is no satisfaction at all. 2014 (4) KLT 576 = 2014 (4) KHC 415 [Hari Hara Krishnan G.K. & Others v. State of Kerala & Others] is pressed into service to sustain Section 10 of the ordinance which makes the amendment applicable to the W.A.791 of 2019 & - 33 -
connected cases present incumbents; legally sustainable as a 'transitional provision'.
10. First and foremost, we have to deal with the contention that the Ordinance was actuated by extraneous reasons and that the invocation of Article 213 of the Constitution results in an abuse of power. Decisions are legion that there can be no mala fides alleged on the Legislature nor on the Governor acting under Article 213; where the Governor exercises the functions of the Legislature, in law making, when the legislature is not in session; a few of which are referred to in the preceding paragraph. The contentions raised on violation of Part III of the Constitution is also based on the well-defined contours of a challenge against legislation being confined to legislative competence and violation of fundamental rights as held in State Of Andhra Pradesh Vs Mc Dowell & Co. Ltd. [1996(3) SCC 709]. We would definitely deal with the ground of legislative competence, the contentions of violations of equality, discrimination meted out and deprivation of livelihood; but first we look at the compelling plea of abuse of power resulting in perpetration of a constitutional fraud.
W.A.791 of 2019 & - 34 - connected cases
11. Arguments were addressed strongly relying on Krishna Kumar Singh, wherein the Court was concerned with the repetitive act of bringing out Ordinances without placing it before the Legislature. The Court was primarily concerned with the question as to "whether upon an Ordinance ceasing to operate, either as a result of its disapproval by the legislature or upon its expiry after the prescribed period of six months of assembling of the legislature, all consequences that have ensued would necessarily stand effaced and obliterated" (sic. Para 93). The Court also considered the aspect of satisfaction of the Governor under Article 213, being subject to judicial review, on which aspect the majority judgment relied on the Constitution Bench decision in (1994) 3 SCC 1 [S.R.Bommai v. Union of India]. We deem it fit to extract the specific paragraph from S.R.Bommai, which was relied on in Krishna Kumar Singh:
"... the truth or correctness of the material cannot be questioned by the court nor will it go into the adequacy of the material. It will also not substitute its opinion for that of the President. Even if some of the material on which the action is taken is found to be irrelevant, the court would still not interfere so long as there is some relevant material sustaining the action. The ground W.A.791 of 2019 & - 35 -
connected cases of mala fides takes in inter alia situations where the Proclamation is found to be a clear case of abuse of power, or what is sometimes called fraud on power - cases where this power is invoked for achieving oblique ends".
It was held that the satisfaction of the Governor under Article 213 was not immune from judicial review. However, the extended scope of judicial scrutiny would depend upon the nature of the subject-matter, the nature of the right affected, the character of the legal and constitutional provisions involved and such factors as held in 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217 [Indra Sawhney v. Union of India]. It was held that since the satisfaction rests with the Governor, the Court should act with circumspection in considering a challenge to that satisfaction and should restrain itself from enquiring into the adequacy or sufficiency of the material before the Governor. If there is some material, the Court should keep its hands off and the interference of the Court could arise only in a case involving a fraud on power or an abuse, where the situation warrants interference for reason of the exercise of power being for an oblique purpose. We have to consider the facts in the above case keeping in mind the inherent limitations regulating the power of judicial review.
W.A.791 of 2019 & - 36 -
connected cases
12. The extraneous ground alleged by the
petitioners is that though the recommendation of the
Council was dated 17.01.2019 and the Legislative Assembly was in session between 25.01.2019 and 12.02.2019, the Government thought it fit to keep the recommendations in cold storage and then immediately after the session concluded, brought out the Ordinance, that too for the purpose of removing the Registrar of Kannur University who was suspended but later directed to be reinstated by this Court. The recommendation of the statutory Council on which the Council of Ministers advised the Governor to bring out the Ordinance was dated 17.01.2019. To place the recommendation in the form of a Bill before the Legislature, which convened a week after the recommendation of the Council, is easier said than done. As per the Rules for Business of the Government of Kerala, every proposal for a legislation, a matter coming within the Second Schedule of the Rules, has to originate from the Department to which the subject matter relates (Rule 44). After settlement of the Proposal, it shall be placed before the Chief Minister through the Ministers in charge of Administrative and Law Department (Rule 45 to 48) and if the Chief Minister does not direct otherwise it shall be W.A.791 of 2019 & - 37 -
connected cases brought before the Council of Ministers (Rule 49). On a decision taken to proceed with the legislation the Law Department has to prepare a final draft Bill (Rule 50). The placing of the bill before the Legislature again has to comply with Chapter XIV: "Legislation" of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Kerala Legislative Assembly. A week is absolutely insufficient to place a Bill before the Legislature and the fact that the recommendation of the Higher Education Council was not placed before the Assembly, which convened a week later, cannot be presumed to be purposeful or deliberate. Lot of background work goes into a legislation and in the present case it also warrants a policy decision and there cannot be found a deliberate attempt not to place it before the Legislative Assembly. Further the Legislative Assembly would have been scheduled much earlier and there would have been placed in the session a number of matters the preparation for which would have begun far earlier. The mere fact that the recommendation of the Council was received before the Assembly commenced its session cannot be the sole basis for assuming that the Government purposefully avoided a legislation proper, by the Legislature.
W.A.791 of 2019 & - 38 -
connected cases
13. Further, admittedly the suspension of the
Registrar and the later reinstatement directed by this
Court were all events subsequent to the recommendation of the Council on 17.01.2019. We cannot impute clairvoyance on the Higher Education Council or the Council of Ministers to so bring out an Ordinance to terminate the services of a Registrar, whose suspension and order of reinstatement by this Court, had been occasioned subsequently. The suspension was on 31.01.2019, after the recommendation of the Council and the judgment referred to was on 18.02.2019, after the Assembly concluded. On the persuasion of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, we had requested the learned Advocate General to make available the files with respect to the promulgation of the Ordinance but did not feel compelled to look into it especially since the extraneous ground stated by the petitioners has been negatived and also by reason of the specific averments in the counter affidavit of the State.
14. The State has specifically contended that the Member Secretary of the Kerala State Higher Education Council, constituted as per the provisions of the Higher Education Council Act, 2007 forwarded a note of the Council to the Government on 17.01.2019 regarding the mode of W.A.791 of 2019 & - 39 -
connected cases appointment of the Registrars/ Controlling Officers/ Finance Officers of the Universities in the State. Generally referred to as Branch Officers in the University system, it was felt that there was no uniformity in their appointments. It was pointed out that in one of the Universities in the State and also in institutions of national importance, such as Indian Institute of Technologies [IIT's] the Branch Officers were appointed for a fixed tenure, while many of the Universities in the State appointed such officers till the age of retirement. There was a recommendation made that the initial appointment could be for one year and on satisfactory completion of probation, the appointment could be confirmed; but permitted to be continued for a tenure of four years or 56 years of age, whichever occurs earlier, 56 being the retirement age generally applicable to Government employees in the State of Kerala. The Government had considered the report and recommendations of the Council in its entirety and found that the recommendation was academically sound and correct. This led to the promulgation of the Ordinance, which was made when the Legislative Assembly was not in session and the State necessarily had the legislative power to prescribe such conditions under Article 309 of the W.A.791 of 2019 & - 40 -
connected cases Constitution of India; the two prerequisites for invocation of Article 213. We would not attempt an enquiry into the satisfaction entered into by the Governor, since we are not to impose our own opinion as to the recommendations of the Council and substitute the Governor's opinion with ours. The Higher Education Council is a statutory body constituted specifically for the purposes of streamlining higher education under The Kerala Higher Education Council Act, 2007. As the Preamble of the enactment indicates, the establishment of the Council was to forge a synergic relationship between the various stake holders thus (i) ensuring autonomy and accountability to the institutions,
(ii) promoting academic excellence and social justice and
(iii) guiding the growth of higher education within the State in accordance with the socio-economic requirements. The Council is also an expert body constituted of Ministers, educationalists, academicians, eminent persons from various walks of life, people's representatives from all tires of local administration and such other representatives of the various stake-holders in education. The Councils recommendations based on the experience garnered from watching the functioning of the academic institutions and the expertise in the respective domains, W.A.791 of 2019 & - 41 -
connected cases have to be duly respected; which experience and expertise we lack, to sit in judgment of such matters relating to education. We would not foray into such un-chartered areas where we have no expertise or experience. The Governor, as was submitted by Sri. Jaju Babu, had sufficient material before him and was also guided by the advice of the Council of Ministers. We find no abuse of power or fraud on power in promulgating the Ordinance.
15. We have to notice the details of the individual petitioners for the purpose of completeness insofar as the consideration of the grounds of discrimination, the prospective operation of the various provisions of the Ordinance as also the contention with respect to the Ordinance having interfered with the vested rights of the various petitioners and violated Part II of the Constitution.
(i) WP(C) No.7431 of 2019 is filed by the Registrar of Calicut University, who commenced regular service as Lecturer in Arabic in an aided college, was later Head of the Department and then appointed as Principal. By a selection process, he was appointed as Registrar and took charge on 06.01.2014 and had been continuing as such for the last five years and is now aged 48 years.
W.A.791 of 2019 & - 42 - connected cases
(ii) W.P.(C) No.7435 of 2019 is filed by the Registrar of Kannur University. According to him, before taking charge as Registrar of the University, he was working as an Associate Professor in the Department of Malayalam of an aided College and was Head of Department; for 20 years. He was appointed as Registrar and joined service on 13.06.2013 and is now aged 53 years.
(iii) W.P.(C) No.7388 of 2019 is filed by the Controller of Examinations, M.G.University. He commenced service as Junior Lecturer in an aided college and was working as Reader; when by a process of selection, he was appointed as Controller of Examinations vide Exhibit P12 and joined the post on 05.03.2005. He is now aged 59 years.
(iv) The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.7416 of 2019 was appointed, by a selection process, as Controller of Examinations of University of Calicut vide order dated 13.12.2013. Before that, he was working as Associate Professor in St.Thomas College Pala and is now aged 56 years.
(v) W.P.(C) No.7267 of 2019 is filed by the Finance Officer of the M.G.University, who took charge as such on 19.10.2000. He is a Chartered Accountant and is now aged 57 years.
W.A.791 of 2019 & - 43 - connected cases
16. We referred to the age of the petitioners to only emphasise that three out of the five have completed the age of 56, which is the age of superannuation of the non-teaching staff of the University and all have completed the tenure as brought in by the Ordinance. We also have to notice that except the Finance Officer all the petitioners were teaching staff, academic personnel, appointed to posts having academic implications which experience is the essential qualification to be so appointed. They cannot be called non-teaching staff since they constantly deal with academic matters and are concerned directly and pivotally with academic aspects of the University. Pertinent too is the fact that M.G. University by its First Statutes prescribe the retirement age of Registrar & Finance Officer at 55 years by Statutes 23 & 37 of Chapter 2. Kannur University prescribes the age of retirement of Registrar at 55 years as per Statute 25 of Chapter II of the First Statutes. Calicut University prescribe the retirement age of Registrar & Controller Of Examinations at 55 years by Statutes 24 & 36 of Chapter 2 of the First Statutes. This was the prescription at the time of appointment of the respective petitioners. M.G. University enhanced the retirement age by an amendment to the Statutes specifying W.A.791 of 2019 & - 44 -
connected cases it at 56 years. The moot question with respect to that University is whether the provision enabling revision of age of retirement in accordance with the amendments made by the State Government would take in an adoption of 60 years as per the UGC Regulations of 1998; when the age of retirement of State Government employees remain at 56 years even now.
17. We will deal with issue of adoption of a higher age of retirement a little later, but the ground of discrimination has to be addressed immediately. There can be no equation of the petitioners or their designations to the non-teaching staff of the Universities. They are statutory officers of the Universities as understood by the Act and the Statutes. Their appointment and terms of conditions of service, both in the respective Acts and Statutes come under one chapter treating them together with the Vice-Chancellor and Pro-Vice-Chancellor; both of whom have tenure appointments. Except the Finance Officer the others also come from the academic stream and have academic responsibilities though not entrusted with teaching assignments. By their special status they cannot be called a part of the faculty, nor can they be equated with non- teaching staff. They stand separate and distinct in their W.A.791 of 2019 & - 45 -
connected cases duties and functions and are in a common class termed statutory officers or Branch Officers of the University. They cannot equate themselves with the other non-teaching staff of the University. There can be no discrimination alleged on that basis. On the ground of discrimination raised on only certain Universities being singled out, it need only to be noticed that the State has categorically stated in its affidavit that it intends to extend it to all the Universities.
18. Rule against retrospectivity is urged on the basis of the prescription in the Statutes and the adoption of a higher age of retirement by the State, which if changed detrimentally cannot take away vested rights. We will first look at the decisions relied on and then the Ordinance. Tushar Ranjan Mohanty, Sangam Spinners and Bhajan Kaur have been placed before us to argue that a vested right cannot be taken away by a subsequent legislation even if the same is made retrospective. Here admittedly there is no retrospective effect conferred on the Ordinance. Tushar Ranjan Mohanty was a general candidate who was superseded for promotion, from Grade-IV to Grade-III, by juniors who were Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes. Mohanty challenged the above W.A.791 of 2019 & - 46 -
connected cases promotions before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which upheld the challenge and directed the official respondents to promote Mohanty also to Grade-III and place him above the candidates who were promoted on reservation. The official respondents, in appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court claimed that subsequently, the Rules were amended permitting reservation even with respect to promotions in the Department, that too retrospectively from a date prior to which Mohanty claimed his right to be considered for promotion. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, relying on various decisions found that there was a vested right on Mohanty at the time of promotion of his juniors from the reservation category and at that point of time the rules specifically prohibited reservation in promotions. The right to be considered for promotion was a vested right which could not have been taken away by a retrospective amendment was the finding. Sangam Spinners considered the amendment of Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, which took away the exemption to newly formed establishments for a period of three years from the date of establishment. Sangam Spinners was an establishment which was set up when such exemption was available, but before the three-year period expired, the W.A.791 of 2019 & - 47 -
connected cases amendment came into force. The Hon'ble Supreme Court found that there was a vested right on the establishment which would operate de hors the amendment and the exemption would continue for the three-year period from the date of its establishment. Bhajan Kaur again considered the amendment made to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 enhancing the compensation payable on no fault liability, which did not have any retrospective effect. It amended the earlier provision and enhanced the quantum of compensation, which was found to be not applicable to accidents which occurred prior to the amendment.
19. The learned Judges in Sangam Spinners relied on AIR 1971 SC 1193 [Jayantilal Amratlal v. Union of India & Others] and extracted the following paragraph:
"In order to see whether the rights and liabilities under the repealed law have been put to an end by the new enactment, the proper approach is not to enquire if the new enactment has by its new provisions kept alive the rights and liabilities under the repealed law but whether it has taken away those rights and liabilities. The absence of a saving clause in a new enactment preserving the rights and liabilities under the repealed law is neither material nor decisive of the question".
W.A.791 of 2019 & - 48 - connected cases Reliance was specifically placed on Section 6 of the
General Clauses Act, which reserved the right, privilege, obligation or liability accrued or incurred under any enactment repealed if there is no provision with a different intention on such repeal being effected.
20. In the present case, the Ordinance without Section 10 would have applied only after the present incumbents in the office of the Registrar, Controller of Examinations and Finance Officer retired; on adoption of the principle that the rights and liabilities under the repealed Act would be carried over after the repeal. However, Section 10 of the Ordinance reveals a different intention insofar as the provisions being made applicable to the present incumbents also. In making it applicable to the present incumbents, there is no retrospectivity conferred on the statute and it applies only prospectively when an incumbent completes the 4 year term or attains 56 years of age, whichever is earlier and to all who have completed either of these mile stones. The transitional provision made applicable the rigor of the amendment to the present incumbents in office too. As we will presently notice the power to decide on the retirement and conditions of service of persons serving the State is on the W.A.791 of 2019 & - 49 -
connected cases legislature of the State under Article 309 of the Constitution and the Ordinance cannot be challenged on the ground of lack of power.
21. Hari Hara Krishnan G.K. was with respect to an identical Ordinance, which curtailed the term of non-hereditary trustees in temples under the Malabar Devaswom Board for a period of two years. The terminated trustees were before this Court challenging the Ordinance on similar grounds of unnecessary political intentions having actuated the promulgation of the Ordinance at the time when the Government changed. The petitioners asserted that those who were appointed under the unamended provision and continued as non-hereditary trustees of the temple, were entitled to be continued till the term of five years, for which they were appointed, as per the unamended provision. A Division Bench of this Court eschewed the allegations of mala fides attributed to the Legislature and found the Ordinance, which was replaced by an Amendment Act, to be a manifestation of the policy decision of the Government to reduce the term of office of the non-hereditary trustees of the temples under the Board. The Court refused to look into the wisdom of the policy or the necessity for such a legislation. Further, similar W.A.791 of 2019 & - 50 -
connected cases provision as available in Section 10 of the Ordinance, which is the subject matter of these proceedings, was also considered. In the Amendment Act considered by the Division Bench, identical "Special provisions relating to the existing members of the Area Committee and non-hereditary trustees" was upheld as a transitional provision. The Court quoted two authoritative texts in illumination of the concept of transitional provisions, which we extract hereunder:
"Transitional provisions in an Act or other instrument are provisions which spell out precisely when and how the operative parts of the instrument are to take effect." and that "It is for the interpreter to realise, and bear constantly in mind that what appears to be the plain meaning of a substantive enactment is often modified by transitional provisions located elsewhere in the Act. Often these are tucked away in an obscure place, where they can be easily overlooked." [Francis Bennion; Bennion on Statutory Interpretation, Fifth Edn. Paged 314-315] G.C.Thornton in his treatise on "Legislative Drafting" has stated that "The function of a transitional provision is to make special provision for the application of legislation to the circumstances which exist when that legislation comes into force." [G.C.Thornton; Legislative Drafting, 2nd Edn. Page 297]".
W.A.791 of 2019 & - 51 - connected cases
In the present case, the special provision under Section 10 is intended at bringing into effect the amendments made by virtue of the Ordinance to those incumbents in the office of the Registrars, Controllers of Examinations and Finance Officers of the Universities. The rigour of the amendments thus validly visits the petitioners with cessation of tenure, if they have either completed 4 years or attained 56 years of age. The provision is unassailable.
22. On the question of vested right, as we noticed earlier, at the time of appointment the retirement age prescribed by all the Universities who were parties in the above cases was either 55 or 56. The claim raised by the petitioners is on the basis of the adoption of the UGC Regulations of 1998 by the Government, which Regulations, according to the Government, prescribed a retirement age of 60 years for the statutory officers. At the outset, it has to be noticed that if during the tenure of a person who is to be continued till the age of retirement there can be an amendment enabling continuation of the employee beyond the age of superannuation for reason of an enhancement of retirement age, necessarily there could be a curtailment of tenure too. The State Legislature, acting under Article 309, would be competent to make such amendments and W.A.791 of 2019 & - 52 -
connected cases individual hardship may not be a reason for the Constitutional Court to interfere with such change in policy brought in by a competent legislation.
23. The learned Advocate General has relied on a host of decisions to support the argument that the curtailment of retirement age does not lead to taking away a vested right of the employee. Bishun Narain Misra, N.Lakshmana Rao and K.Nagaraj found that cessation of service resulting from change of age of superannuation did not amount to removal within the meaning of Article 311. Bishun Narain Misra negatived the contention of the employees, that if the persons who are already in service were superannuated based on reduction in age, brought into the service conditions after they were appointed; then it would be retrospective in nature. The rule amending the age of superannuation was held to be not retrospective and comes into force on the date of the amendment and applies across the board to all the Government servants even though recruited prior to the amendment, was the finding. N.Lakshmana Rao found that the position of a Government servant is one of status and not of contract. It was held that there is no constitutional limitation to reduce the age of retirement and a Government servant enjoys that W.A.791 of 2019 & - 53 -
connected cases status only till he reaches the age of superannuation as per the rules which exist on his reaching that age.
24. K.Nagaraj specifically dealt with the argument that reduction in age of retirement takes away the right of a person to his livelihood. It was held that that if a rule of retirement is to be deemed as depriving a person of his livelihood, then it would be impermissible to provide for an age of retirement at all. It was held "rules of retirement do not take away the right of a person to his livelihood: they limit his right to hold office to a stated number of years" (sic. Para 35). Therein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had accepted the contentions of the State insofar as the reduction of retirement age having been necessitated to provide an opportunity to the unemployed talented youth eagerly awaiting chances of appointment and ensure that the legitimate aspirations for promotion of experienced deserving in-service personnel are not thwarted. The challenge on the ground of violation of fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution is demolished, miserably, under the sheer weight of the precedents above referred.
25. The sheet-anchor of the claim of legitimate expectation for continuance upto 60 years is based on the W.A.791 of 2019 & - 54 -
connected cases adoption of the UGC Regulations of 1998, specifically the retirement age prescribed of 60 years for the Branch Officers of the Universities. The Government Order, No.GO(MS) No.745/2014/H.Edn. dated 29.08.2014, is produced at Exhibit P5 in W.P.(C) No.7267 of 2019. We have to first look at the sequential UGC Regulations which were brought out and the notifications based on which such Regulations were framed.
26. The UGC Notification on Revision of Pay Scales, Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers in Universities & Colleges and Other Measures for the Maintenance of Standards, 1998 provided at Clause 16.2.0 that the age of retirement of the statutory officers, who are being treated at par with the teachers and whose age of superannuation was 60 years, would be 62 years. Letter No.1-32/2006-U.II/U.I(ii) dated 31.12.2008 issued by the Ministry of Human Resource Development [MHRD], Department of Higher Education also contained, at Clause (1)(c), that "the age of superannuation, as at present, shall continue to be 62 (sixty two) years for Registrar and equivalent posts". Later, UGC Regulations of 2000 was brought out which, obviously, did not apply to the Branch Officers. As of now, what exists is the UGC Regulations on Minimum W.A.791 of 2019 & - 55 -
connected cases Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities & Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2010. The Regulations of 2010, according to the Sri.Murali Purushothaman, were brought out in pursuance of the MHRD notification of 2008 and hence, the 2010 Regulations ought to be considered as having included the retirement age of 62 years with respect to the Branch Officers of Universities. However, the specific provisions in the Regulations indicate otherwise.
27. We extract hereunder Clause 8(p) of the UGC Regulations of 2010, which speaks of applicability of the Scheme:
"8(p) Applicability of the Scheme:
(i) This Scheme shall be applicable to teachers and other equivalent cadres of Library and Physical Education in all the Central Universities and Colleges there-under and the Institutions Deemed to be Universities whose maintenance expenditure is met by the UGC. The implementation of the revised scales shall be subject to the acceptance of all the conditions mentioned in this letter as well as Regulations to be framed by the UGC in this behalf. Universities implementing this Scheme shall be advised by the UGC to amend their relevant statutes and ordinances in line with the UGC Regulations W.A.791 of 2019 & - 56 -
connected cases within three months from the date of issue of this letter.
(ii) This Scheme does not extend to the cadres of Registrar, Finance Officer and Controller of Examinations for which a separate Scheme is being issued separately.
xxx xxx xxx
(v) This Scheme may be extended to Universities, Colleges and other higher educational institutions coming under the purview of the State legislatures, provided State Governments wish to adopt and implement the Scheme subject to the following terms and conditions:
Hence, while the applicability was made mandatory for the Central Universities and Colleges, it was left to the Universities, Colleges and other higher education institutions coming under the purview of the State Legislatures to adopt and implement the scheme subject to the terms and conditions, which also spoke of Central assistance to the extent of 80% for a specific period if the adoption is carried out. Even in the case of teaching staff, the Regulations of 2010 left the question of adoption to the discretion of the State. Further, with respect to Registrar, Finance Officer and Controller of Examinations, it was specifically provided that it does not extend to such cadres and there a separate scheme was in W.A.791 of 2019 & - 57 -
connected cases contemplation, which has not been brought out till now.
Hence, the Regulations which have a statutory flavour, specifically excluded the Branch Officers of Universities.
The UGC Regulations of 2010 having expressly superseded the Regulations of 1998, the adoption by the State Government as carried out in the executive order dated 29.08.2014 stands on a very sticky wicket.
28. In this context, we also have to notice the earlier executive orders of the Government, which also were subject to scrutiny before this Court in the case of the teaching staff themselves. We notice Exhibit P5 order in W.P (C) No.7416 of 2019 [G.O)P) No.392/2010/H.Edn. dated 10.12.2010]. This order refers to G.O.(P) No.58/2010/H.Edn. dated 27.03.2010. In the Government Order of 10.12.2010, Clause-7 is relevant, which is extracted herein below:
"7. Government also order that notwithstanding anything contained in the Regulations only those benefits both monetary and others specified in the Government Order read as 1st paper above would be receivable".
The Government Order read as (1) above refers to the order dated 27.03.2010, which specifically provided by Clause 11.7 that "The age of superannuation shall continue as at present". Hence it continued as 56 years as available in W.A.791 of 2019 & - 58 -
connected cases the Government service.
29. On almost similar contentions, relying on the UGC Regulations of 2010; teachers of the aided colleges within the State sought for continuation of their services upto the age of 60; which contention was further sought to be fortified on the ground of discrimination insofar as the teachers directly under the Universities being superannuated only at the age of 60. Two writ petitions, numbered as W.P.(C).10257 and 11511 of 2016, were dismissed by a common judgment dated 28.03.2016 [Dr.J.Vijayan & Others v. State of Kerala & Others] by one of us [K.Vinod Chandran,J.]. The appeals, W.A.Nos.734 and 854 of 2016, filed against the said judgment were dismissed by a Division Bench by judgment dated 13.12.2017 [Dr.J.Vijayan & Others v. State of Kerala & Others]. The Division Bench dealt with the contentions in detail and elaborately quoted from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagdish Prasad Sharma (supra). It was found that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court concluded all the issues raised in the cases as against the teachers insofar as the State having primacy in deciding on the service conditions under Article 309 of the Constitution. The statutory character of the UGC Regulations and the obligation of the UGC to follow W.A.791 of 2019 & - 59 -
connected cases the directions issued by the Central Government in view of Section 20 of the UGC Act was affirmed following the decision in P.Suseela.
30. The contentions raised before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagdish Prasad Sharma was as to whether the Scheme of 2008 framed by the UGC had a binding effect on educational institutions run by the different States and under State enactments. The scheme also included enhancement of retirement age of teachers to 65 years, which was also a condition insofar as, the Central Government bearing 80% of the additional liability with respect to the enhancement of pay for a specified period. The State of Kerala had implemented the pay scales recommended by the UGC, without enhancing the age of superannuation. The State of Kerala argued before the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the situation in the State was drastically different from that existing in the other States insofar as the State is having surplus qualified and eligible hands, waiting for employment, which necessitated the prescription of a lower retirement age. The teachers had argued before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, specifically referring to the Government Orders of 2010, that the executive orders issued under Article 162 of the W.A.791 of 2019 & - 60 -
connected cases Constitution cannot override the statutory regulations framed by the UGC. What was assailed specifically before the Supreme Court was the prescription at Clause-7 extracted hereinabove of the Government order dated 10.12.2010. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held in favour of the State affirming the stand taken, relying on Article 309 and refused to find a case for enhancement of retirement age based only on the UGC Regulations.
31. Paragraphs 67 to 70, 72 and 78 of Jagdish Prasad Sharma (supra) are apposite, which we extract herein below:
"67. One of the common submissions made on behalf of the respondents was whether the aforesaid Scheme would automatically apply to the Centrally- funded institutions, to the State universities and educational institutions and also private institutions at the State level, on account of the stipulation that the Scheme would have to be accepted in its totality. As indicated hereinbefore in this judgment, the purport of the Scheme was to enhance the pay of the teachers and other connected staff in the State universities and educational institutions and also to increase their age of superannuation from 62 to 65 years. The Scheme provides that if it was accepted by the State concerned, UGC would bear 80% of the expenses on account of such enhancement in the pay structure and W.A.791 of 2019 & - 61 -
connected cases the remaining 20% would have to be borne by the State. This would be for the period commencing from 1-1-2006 till 31-3-2010, after which the entire liability on account of revision of pay scales would have to be taken over by the State Government. Furthermore, financial assistance from the Central Government would be restricted to revision of pay scales in respect of only those posts which were in existence and had been filled up as on 1-1-2006. While most of the States were willing to adopt the Scheme, for the purpose of receiving 80% of the salary of the teachers and other staff from UGC which would reduce their liability to 20% only, they were unwilling to accept the Scheme in its composite form which not only entailed acceptance of the increase in the retirement age from 62 to 65 years, but also shifted the total liability in regard to the increase in the pay scales to the States after 1-4-2010.
68. Another anxiety which is special to certain States, such as the States of Uttar Pradesh and Kerala, has also come to light during the hearing. In both the States, the problem is one of surplusage and providing an opportunity for others to enter into service. On behalf of the State of Kerala, it had been urged that there were a large number of educated unemployed youth, who are waiting to be appointed, but by retaining teachers beyond the age of 62 years, they were being denied such opportunity. As far as the State of U.P. is concerned, it is one of job expectancy, similar to W.A.791 of 2019 & - 62 -
connected cases that prevailing in Kerala. The State Governments of the said two States were, therefore, opposed to the adoption of the UGC Scheme, although, the same has not been made compulsorily applicable to the universities, colleges and other institutions under the control of the State authorities.
69. To some extent there is an air of redundancy in the prayers made on behalf of the respondents in the submissions made regarding the applicability of the Scheme to the State and its universities, colleges and other educational institutions. The elaborate arguments advanced in regard to the powers of UGC to frame such regulations and/or to direct the increase in the age of teachers from 62 to 65 years as a condition precedent for receiving aid from UGC, appears to have little relevance to the actual issue involved in these cases. That the Commission is empowered to frame regulations under Section 26 of the UGC Act, 1956, for the promotion and coordination of university education and for the determination and maintenance of standards of teaching, examination and research, cannot be denied. The question that assumes importance is whether in the process of framing such regulations, the Commission could alter the service conditions of the employees which were entirely under the control of the States in regard to State institutions?
70. The authority of the Commission to frame regulations with regard to the service conditions of teachers in the Centrally-funded educational institutions is equally well-established. As has W.A.791 of 2019 & - 63 -
connected cases been very rightly done in the instant case, the acceptance of the Scheme in its composite form has been left to the discretion of the State Governments. The concern of the State Governments and their authorities that UGC has no authority to impose any conditions with regard to its educational institutions is clearly unfounded. There is no doubt that the Regulations framed by UGC relate to Schedule VII List I Entry 66 to the Constitution, but it does not empower the Commission to alter any of the terms and conditions of the enactments by the States under Article 309 of the Constitution. Under List III Entry 25, the State is entitled to enact its own laws with regard to the service conditions of the teachers and other staff of the universities and colleges within the State and the same will have effect unless they are repugnant to any Central legislation.
xxx xxx xxx
72. As far as the States of Kerala and U.P. are concerned, they have their own problems which are localised and stand on a different footing from the other States, none of whom who appear to have the same problem. Education now being a List III subject, the State Government is at liberty to frame its own laws relating to education in the State and is not, therefore, bound to accept or follow the Regulations framed by UGC. It is only natural that if they wish to adopt the Regulations framed by the Commission under Section 26 of the UGC Act, 1956, the States will have to abide by the conditions as W.A.791 of 2019 & - 64 -
connected cases laid down by the Commission.
xxx xxx xxx
78. We are then faced with the situation where a composite scheme has been framed by UGC, whereby the Commission agreed to bear 80% of the expenses incurred by the State if such scheme was to be accepted, subject to the condition that the remaining 20% of the expense would be met by the State and that on and from 1-4-2010, the State Government would take over the entire burden and would also have enhanced the age of superannuation of teachers and other staff from 62 to 65 years. There being no compulsion to accept and/or adopt the said Scheme, the States are free to decide as to whether the Scheme would be adopted by them or not. In our view, there can be no automatic application of the recommendations made by the Commission, without any conscious decision being taken by the State in this regard, on account of the financial implications and other consequences attached to such a decision. The case of those petitioners who have claimed that they should be given the benefit of the Scheme dehors the responsibility attached thereto, must, therefore, fail".
32. The source of legislative power has to be traced to Article 245 and Article 246 of the Constitution, which effects a complete separation of the powers of the Union and the States. The Entries in the Lists have been held to be a simple enumeration of broad categories not W.A.791 of 2019 & - 65 -
connected cases allocated on a scientific or logical reasoning. The various entries in the three Lists are not powers of legislation, but only fields of legislation as held in State of W.B. v. Kesoram Industries Ltd. [(2004) 10 SCC 201]. The age of retirement prescribed by the State is under Article 309, to which alone can be traced the power to so prescribe the age of superannuation, which definitely is a service condition. There does not arise any question of resolution of a conflict arising between the legislation under Entry 66 of List 1 and Entry 25 of List II of the Seventh Schedule. Superannuation hence is a condition of service, the power to prescribe which vests clearly on the State Legislature and there can be found no lack of jurisdiction. The two grounds of challenge, possible against a legislation as found in Mc Dowell and Co. has to be rejected.
33. Yet again the Division Bench in Dr.J.Vijayan & Others noticed that "the Central Government itself had by its letter dated 14.08.2012 clarified the position that the age of superannuation was exclusively within the domain of the policy making powers of the State Government and that the condition regarding the enhancement of age of superannuation may be treated as withdrawn" (sic. Para 11). The specific clause 4 is extracted below from the letter W.A.791 of 2019 & - 66 -
connected cases of the MHRD:
"4. After taking into consideration the views expressed by several State Education Ministers during the Conference held in 2010 the Central Government has now decided to de-link the condition of enhancement of age of superannuation from the payment of Central share of 80% arrears to the States".
Yet another clause, Clause 5, relevant to the issue can be found in the extract we make, in the succeeding paragraph from the decision of the Division Bench.
34. The Division Bench in Dr.J.Vijayan (supra), in the light of the authoritative pronouncement in Jagdish Prasad Sharma (supra) held so in paragraphs 14 & 15 :
"14. It is in the light of the above authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court, that the present contentions of the counsel for the appellants are required to be considered. The contention that the UGC Regulations were made in exercise of the power under Entry 66 List I Schedule VII of the Constitution, while the State enactments are made under Entry 25 List III Schedule VII and for the said reason, in the event of repugnancy, the Central enactment would prevail,has to fail for more reasons than one. In the first place, the State Laws prescribing the age of retirement of teachers are made in exercise of the power under Article 309 of the Constitution. The Apex Court has found in W.A.791 of 2019 & - 67 -
connected cases Jagdish Prasad Sharma (supra) that such enactments would remain unaffected by the stipulations contained in the UGC Regulations. Secondly, it has been further held by the Court in the said decision that the UGC does not have any power to stipulate the service conditions of teachers. Therefore, such power is vested entirely in the State. Thirdly, obviously in recognition of the above position of law the UGC Regulations have conferred a discretion on the State Governments to decide whether to implement the Regulations or not. In view of the conferment of the discretion as noted above, no question of repugnancy arises in these cases. Therefore, we do not think it necessary to consider the above contention in any further detail.
15. On the next contention that the Scheme under the UGC Regulations, 2010 has to be accepted in full as a composite one and that adoption of the Scheme without enhancing the retirement age of teachers was bad, we find that the said issue has been concluded by the Supreme Court. Though a similar contention was put forward in Jagdish Prasad Sharma (supra) with respect to the Government Order dated 10.12.2010, the same did not find favour with the court. The said Government Order evidenced herein by Ext.P10 in W.A. No.854 of 2016 provides at paragraph 6 as follows:
"6. Government are also pleased to order that where there are any provision in the Regulations is inconsistent with the provisions in the G.O. read as 1 paper above, st those provisions in the G.O. would override W.A.791 of 2019 & - 68 -
connected cases the provisions in the Regulations to the extent of such inconsistency."
Reference No.1 in the said Government Order is to G.O.(P) No.58/2010/H.Edn. dated 27.3.2010 (Ext.P8 in W.A. No.854 of 2016). It is the said Government Order that is directed to prevail as per Clause 6 extracted above. It has been ordered by the said Government Order that the age of superannuation shall continue as at present. In the above context, it is necessary to notice that as per letter No. F.I-7/2010-U.II dated 14.8.2012 of the MHRD (a copy of which has been handed over to us by the counsel in Court), it has been clarified that the issue regarding age of retirement has been left to the decision of the State Governments. Paragraph 5 that deals with the above aspect is extracted hereunder for convenience of reference:
"5. Bearing in mind that the question of enhancement of age of retirement is exclusively within the domain of the policy making power of the State Governments, the issue of age of retirement has been left to the State Governments to decide at their level. The condition of enhancement of age of superannuation to 65 years as mentioned in this Ministry's letter dated 31.12.2008 may be treated as withdrawn, for the purpose of seeking reimbursement of central share of arrears to be paid to State University and College teachers. However, the other conditions as mentioned in the letters cited above shall continue to apply." (emphasis supplied).
Though a contention has been put forward by the counsel for the appellants that, the condition has W.A.791 of 2019 & - 69 -
connected cases been withdrawn for the purpose of seeking reimbursement of the central share of arrears alone, we are not prepared to accept the same in view of the opening sentence in the said clause which declares in unambiguous terms that enhancement of age of retirement is exclusively within the domain of the powers of the State Government and that for the said reason, the issue of age of retirement has been left to the State Governments to decide at their level.
35. Hence, when the retirement age as provided for in the UGC Regulations for teachers was not an aspect which had to be mandatorily adopted, there was no question of enhancement of retirement age of Branch Officers, which was not provided for in the UGC Regulations, being adopted by the Government. The adoption of the UGC Regulations of 1998, (which was by then superseded), by Exhibit P5 dated 29.08.2014 [produced in W.P(C) No.7267 of 2019] is on a misunderstanding, misconception and totally wrong premise. The Government has now defined the appointment to be one of tenure by the Ordinance which is perfectly within the powers of the Government and also comes within the ambit of a policy formulation.
36. Now we look at the contention raised of the retirement age being a stipulation in the statute and the W.A.791 of 2019 & - 70 -
connected cases statute having been sought to be amended, for which the Syndicate has already taken a decision; which is pending with the Chancellor of the University. We have to decide this question looking at the amended and unamended provisions in the Act and the specific power conferred to prescribe matters by way of Statutes. The appointment of the Registrar, Controller of Examinations and Finance Officer is regulated by Sections 12, 13 and 14 of the M.G.University Act, Sections 14, 15 and 16 of the Kannur University Act and Sections 12, 13 and 14 of the Calicut University Act; all of which, more or less, are of the same purport. The unamended provisions provide that such statutory officers shall be whole time salaried officers appointed by the Syndicate for such period and on such terms as may be prescribed by the statutes. The power to frame the statutes is available in Section 35 of the M.G.University Act, Section 37 of the Kannur University Act and Section 34 of the Calicut University Act; again are in pari materia provisions. The power so conferred is subject to the provisions of the Act and it provides provision for all or any of the matters enumerated thereunder. The provision also confers the power to make prescription with respect to all matters, which, by the provisions of this W.A.791 of 2019 & - 71 -
connected cases Act, are to be prescribed by statutes.
37. As we noticed, the provision dealing with the appointment of the statutory officers, prior to amendment, specifically provides for the terms of appointment to be prescribed by the statutes, which takes in the retirement age also. The provision for retirement age in the Statutes was made on the basis of the specific power conferred under the Act. The amended provision incorporated by the Ordinance, in the various Acts are in pari materia and is as follows:
"(1) The Registrar shall be a whole-time salaried officer of the University and shall be appointed by the Syndicate for a period of four years from the date on which he enters upon his office or till he completes the age of fifty-six years, whichever is earlier and on such terms and conditions as may be prescribed by the Statutes. (1A) The person appointed as Registrar shall be eligible for re-appointment for one more period subject to the provisions in sub-section (1)".
38. The amended provision itself provides for the term of office of the statutory officer which is a period of four years from the date on which he enters upon the office or till he completes the age of 56 years, whichever is earlier. This is well within the powers of the State W.A.791 of 2019 & - 72 -
connected cases Legislature under Article 309 of the Constitution. The amended provision also further provides for prescription by the statutes the terms and conditions of appointment. This does not include the tenure of appointment; which has been laid down by the amended provision itself. The crucial difference between the unamended provision and the amended one is that while the unamended provision spoke of the appointment of the statutory officer as a whole-time salaried employee on such terms and conditions as may be prescribed by the statute, the amended provision provided for appointment only upto 4 years or completion of the age of 56 years, whichever is earlier on such terms and conditions as prescribed by the statute. Hence, the amended provision took away the power conferred to prescribe the tenure of appointment of the statutory officers, which the law making authority itself provided for. Though it is argued that the Syndicate has already approved the amendment to the statutes prescribing the retirement age to be 60 years, the said amendment to the statutes would have no effect even if carried out, since the power to prescribe the period of appointment has been taken away by the law making authority. The Statutes as provided for in the Act, is a subordinate legislation and the power to make W.A.791 of 2019 & - 73 -
connected cases prescriptions by way of a subordinate legislation is only to the extent specifically conferred by the enactment. The enactments, herein the M.G.University Act, Kannur University Act and Calicut University Act; having now provided for a specific tenure, determined either by the four year period or the age of retirement as generally applicable to the State Government employees, whichever is earlier; the tenure ends with the first of such contingencies occurring. The contention that the statutes have to be amended to regulate the age of superannuation, hence, fails.
39. On the above reasoning, we do not find any relevance to All Kerala Private College Teachers' Association (supra), the decision relied on by Sri.V.A.Muhammed. There can be no dispute on the declaration therein that the Statutes of the University after its framing at the first instance by the State, can only be altered or amended by the Syndicate conferred with the power to prescribe. Here, it is not a case of the State having altered the Statutes at all. The State, by the amendment in the Act, has divested the Syndicate of the power to prescribe the period/tenure of appointment of statutory officers; by providing for it in the Act itself.
W.A.791 of 2019 & - 74 - connected cases
The Syndicate, by the amended provisions, has been divested of the authority or competence to prescribe in the subordinate legislation the age of retirement since now it is a tenure appointment.
40. In this context, we also find the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Dr.A.M.Michael (supra) relied on by Sri. Poonthottam, to be not applicable to the facts of the instant cases. Therein, a Vice-Chancellor was appointed for a specific term by virtue of a provision which provided continuation for a tenure of five years, which was later amended with a proviso aimed at ceasing the tenure on attaining the age of 65 years; with a further proviso to terminate the tenure of the Vice-Chancellor appointed and continuing on completion of 65 years. Therein, the unamended section specifically contained a sub-section which provided that the emoluments and other conditions of service of the Vice-Chancellor shall not be varied to his disadvantage after his appointment. There is no such provision in the present case in the Act at the time of appointment nor in the Statutes. Further, here in the amendment, by way of an Ordinance, there is a specific provision insofar as making the amendment applicable to those persons in service as per Section 10.
W.A.791 of 2019 & - 75 - connected cases
41. We do not think Section 10 can be challenged as being ultra vires the Act as strenuously urged by Sri.Ibrahim. In fact, the Ordinance has been promulgated by the Governor invoking his powers under Article 213 of the Constitution, which permits the Governor to so act when the Legislature is not in session. The source of the power for promulgating the Ordinance has to be traced to the source of the power of the Legislature, which has its source in Article 309 of the Constitution. The Governor acting under Article 213, is acting on behalf of the Legislature and the prescription of the tenure of appointment of statutory officers in a University is perfectly within the competence of the Legislature. If at all; the argument could have been that the power invoked is ultra vires the Constitution, which, however, cannot be; by virtue of Article 309. We are surprised that such an argument was raised by one of the petitioners especially noticing the fact that a Full Bench of this Court had specifically dealt with such a contention almost half a century back. We extract paragraphs 13 from N.Srinivasan (supra):
"(13) So runs the argument, but, this is the first time we hear of an amendment to a statute made by an authority competent to make the statute being ultra vires some provision of the statute W.A.791 of 2019 & - 76 -
connected cases itself. Under the proviso to Article 309, the governor has full powers, subject of course to the provisions of the Constitution, to make rules regulating the conditions of service of the members of the State services, the only limitation placed on the operation of the rules so made being that they must yield to any law which the legislature itself might make in the matter. No such limitation as that what we might call a disadvantageous rule can be made in respect of a person already in service only with his consent it is to be found in the article. Not even the petitioner himself has attempted to find in it such a limitation. And, if the effect of rule 6 be, as the petitioner claim, it is that the Governor has passed a self-denying ordinance precluding himself from making disadvantageous rules in respect of persons already in service without their consent that ordinance would be ultra vires article 309. Nor could it possibly be found an estoppel since the estoppel would be against the article. The utmost that can be said is that, as a matter of construction, rule 6 and the re-amended rule should, if possible, be so read as not to conflict with each other. But, if conflict is unavoidable, then it would appear that, to the extent of the conflict, the re-amended rule must prevail on the doctrine of implied repeal". We desist from remarking on the identical contention raised after half-a-century; but reject the same.
42. We are not convinced that the decisions as W.A.791 of 2019 & - 77 -
connected cases placed reliance on by Sri.Shyam Krishnan, viz., AIR 1967 SC 1305 [Dinnapati Sadasiva Reddi, Vice- Chancellor, Osmania University v. Chancellor, Osmania University & Others] and (2008) 5 SCC 1 [P.Venugopal v. Union of India] have any application to the present case. Therein, the amendment terminating the services of incumbents in office, was interfered with finding it to be a one man legislation aimed at curtailing the tenure of one single person. T.P.George and B.Bharat Kumar fortifies the finding that the age of retirement as prescribed in the UGC Scheme cannot be claimed as a right of the teachers, when the Government has not accepted the recommendation of the UGC. The age of retirement being a policy matter it is within the exclusive premise of the State. The age of retirement as provided in the statutes at the time when all the petitioners were appointed to the service was either 55 or
56. They cannot have any claim of legitimate expectation of being continued beyond such age of retirement at the time of their appointment. We pause here to note that two of the petitioners herein [petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos.7431 and 7435 of 2019] have not reached the superannuation age as provided for in the statutes at the time of their appointment; but, we will deal with that issue later. The W.A.791 of 2019 & - 78 -
connected cases legitimate expectation as projected by all the petitioners is to continue upto 60 years based on the adoption of the retirement age prescribed in the UGC Regulations of 1998 so adopted on 29.08.2014. In fact, we have found that the UGC Regulations of 1998 was superseded and even when there was a retirement age prescribed under the Regulations of the UGC with respect to the teaching faculty, that was withdrawn by the communication of the Ministry of Human Resources Department on 14.08.2012. We found that the adoption of the retirement age at 60 years by the Government was on a total misunderstanding of the Regulations existing as on that date. It was also against the specific policy of the Government with respect to the teachers of the aided colleges as has been declared in the Government Orders of 27.03.2010 and 10.12.2010.
43. As far as the two petitioners who have not reached 56 years and whose services stand terminated, the learned Advocate General has assured us that they could go back to their parent department as has been provided in the Ordinance itself. For both, it is to aided college service, which Management, is not a party herein. But all the same the Advocate General assures us that suitable measures will be taken to continue them in their parent department. The W.A.791 of 2019 & - 79 -
connected cases University and the State has a control over the Colleges from which they came to take up their assignments with the University; insofar as the affiliation being from the former and the funding from the latter. The Government could definitely adjust equities. Even otherwise, the remedy for compensation would be available to them and it may not be proper for us to venture into that in these writ petitions which only challenge the Ordinance. We leave that question open, if so desired, to be agitated before the appropriate forum. But, we emphasize that individual hardship cannot be a reason to interfere with the legislative exercise carried on by the State to implement a valid policy arrived at on the basis of expert opinion and intended at providing uniformity of tenure of statutory officers in the Universities in the State. As for as the two, who came from aided college service and completed 56 years, they have enjoyed tenure beyond the period they would have enjoyed in their parent department and they cannot claim any vested right to be continued till 60 years or a legitimate expectation on that count. As far as the Finance Officer, the retirement age in the K.S.F.E. would determine his remedy either to go back to the parent department or compensation; which he could take up W.A.791 of 2019 & - 80 -
connected cases independently.
In the light of the above findings, we reject the Writ Petitions. As a consequence, the Writ Appeals are closed as unnecessary. The costs of the litigation would be the liability of the respective parties.
Sd/-
K.VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE Sd/-
V.G.ARUN JUDGE Vku/-
W.A.791 of 2019 & - 81 -
connected cases
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7267/2019
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.
228/2000/AII (3)/ADMN. DATED 31.05.2000 EXHIBIT P2 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER NO.
AD/AII(3)/288/2000/ADMN. DATED 5.10.2000 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO. 288/2000/AII (3) /ADMN. DATED 27.10.2000 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.
AC.L/1/112/SA RETIREMENT AGE 2013/ DATED 1.7.2013 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5 THE PHOTOCOPY OF GO (MS) NO.
745/2014/H.EDN. DATED 29.8.2014 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE UNIVERSITY LAWS (AMENDMENT) ORDINANCE, 2019.
EXHIBIT P7 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO.
704/1/13/2019 DATED 8.3.2019 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO.
928/AD/A2/2019/MGU DATED 8.3.2019 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NEWS ITEM WHICH APPEARED IN THE MATHRUBHUMI DAILY (ERNAKULAM EDITION), IN ITS ISSUE DATED 9.3.2019.
W.A.791 of 2019 & - 82 -
connected cases
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7388/2019
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED
25/10/1982.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21/12/1982.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.AC.FI.4.396/82
DATED 28/12/1983.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PROMOTION ORDER OF THE
PETITIONER DATED 29/10/1984.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.DP.(T)61/84 DATED
11/01/1984.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.AC.BV-3/04/98
DATED 09/12/1998.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE U.O.NO.AC.BV-3/04/1998
DATED 28/03/2001.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE U.O.NO.AC.BV/3/54/2002
DATED 17/04/2002.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT)
NO.1355/2002/H.EDN. DATED 16/10/2002. EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.ACD C1/13117/NSS/HSE/2002 DATED 22/11/2002. EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 22/07/2004.
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER NO.AD.4534/2004/AII(3)/CE/ADMN. DATED 05/03/2005.
EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE RELIEVING ORDER DATED 05/03/2005.
EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF TRANSFER OF CHARGES DATED 05/03/2005.
EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.AD/4534/2004/AII(3)/CE/ADMN DATED 10/03/2005.
W.A.791 of 2019 & - 83 - connected cases EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
NO.AD.4534/2004/AII(3)/ADMN. DATED 03/04/2006.
EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.AD.AII(3)/4534/04 DATED 17/10/2006.
EXHIBIT P18 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.5270/AII(3) 2011/ADMN DATED 22/09/2011.
EXHIBIT P19 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.AC.L/1/112/SA/RETIREMENT AGE/2013 DATED 01/07/2013.
EXHIBIT P20 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.745/2014/H.EDN.
DATED 29/08/2014.
EXHIBIT P21 TRUE COPY OF THE U.O.NO.269/A III/2/2015/ADMN. DATED 09/01/2015.
EXHIBIT P22 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDINANCE NO.21 OF 2019, THE UNIVERSITY LAWS (AMENDMENT) ORDINANCE, 2019 DATED 06/03/2019.
EXHIBIT P23 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.704/1/13/2019 DATED 08/03/2019.
EXHIBIT P24 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.924/AD A2/2019/MGU DATED 08/03/2019.
EXHIBIT P25 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.928/AD A2/MGU DATED 08/03/2019.
W.A.791 of 2019 & - 84 -
connected cases
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7416/2019
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFIED ISSUED BY THE
UNIVERSITY DATED 10/07/2013.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF APPOINTMENT DATED
13/12/2013.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27/01/2014
ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 01/10/2015 BY
WHICH THE PROBATION OF THE PETITIONER WAS DECLARED.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(P) NO.392/2010/H.EDN.
DATED 10/12/2010.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE STATUTE AS AMENDED BY THE UNIVERSITY WITH ALL ACCOMPANIED DOCUMENTS FORWARDED TO TH CHANCELLOR.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT DATED 29/08/2014 WITH ITS TYPED COPY.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE AMENDMENT SO MADE AND ISSUED ON 06/03/2019.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OF THE SESSION OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AS AVAILABLE FROM THE WEBSITE OF THE KERALA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 63411/AD-F-ASST-
2/2013/CU(1) DATED 13/3/2019 ISSUED BY THE VICE CHANCELLOR.
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER U.O.NO.3832/2019/ADMN. DATED 15/3/2019 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY.
W.A.791 of 2019 & - 85 -
connected cases
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7431/2019
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE
DATED 25.10.2013.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED
9.3.2012.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED
23.9.2013 ISSUED UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE SELECTION COMMITTEE OF THE SYNDICATE OF UNIVERSITY DATED 21.1.2014.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 1.1.2014 FOR APPOINTMENT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER AS REGISTERED.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE RELIEVING ORDER DATED 6.1.2014 ISSUED BY THE MANAGER, MAMO COLLEGE.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE U.O.NO.410/2014/CU DATED 13.1.2014.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE U.O.NO.10337/2015/ADMN.
DATED 1.10.2015.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION VIDE NO.67305/AD-F-ASST-2/2013/CU DATED 18.1.2014.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT LETTER NO.23949/D2/14/H.EDN. DATED 15.7.2014. EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE U.O.NO.4935/2014/ADMN.
DATED 21.5.2014.
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE U.O.NO.434/2014/FIN. DATED 5.6.2014.
EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE U.O.NO.5740/2014/ADMN.
DATED 16.6.2014.
EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT LETTER NO.425/B1/2016/H.EDN. DATED 16.8.2016.
W.A.791 of 2019 & - 86 -
connected cases
EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE U.O.NO.10384/2016/ADMN.
DATED 25.8.2016.
EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE U.O.NO.13071/2017/ADMN.
DATED 11.10.2017.
EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(MS)NO.745/2014/H.EDN.
DATED 29.8.2014.
EXHIBIT P18 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDINANCE NO.21 OF 2019,
THE UNIVERSITY LAWS (AMENDMENT) ORDINANCE, 2019.
EXHIBIT P19 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF DR.ABBAS.T.P. DATED 30.5.2018.
W.A.791 of 2019 & - 87 -
connected cases
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7435/2019
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.AD.A2.7490/2013
DATED 17.6.2013 ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT ACCORDING SANCTION TO THE
APPOINTMENT.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DATED
6.3.2019 PUBLISHING THE UNIVERSITY LAWS (AMENDMENT) ORDINANCE, 2019.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.AD.A2.7490/2013 OF THE VICE CHANCELLOR DATED 8.3.2019.
[TRUE COPY]