Kerala High Court
Premanath R vs State Of Kerala on 2 March, 1991
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH 2017/30TH PHALGUNA, 1938
WP(C).No. 12816 of 2013 (B)
----------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-------------
PREMANATH R.,
AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.K.RAMANKUTTY MENON,
SELECTION GRADE LECTURER,
DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING,
N.S.S.COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING,
PALAKKAD.
BY ADVS.SRI.RENJITH THAMPAN (SR.)
SMT.P.R.REENA
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION,
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PIN-695 001.
2. THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PIN-695 001.
3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR,
REGIONAL DIRECTORATE OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION,
CALICUT. PIN-673 636.
4. THE REGISTRAR,
UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT,
THENJIPALAM,
MALAPPURAM. PIN-673 636.
5. THE PRINCIPAL
N.S.S.COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING,
PALAKKAD. PIN-678 008.
R1-R3 BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER
R4 BY SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW,SC,CALICUTY UNIVERS
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
21-03-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
EL
WP(C).No. 12816 of 2013 (B)
----------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
P1- TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE PETITIONER
DATED 2.3.1991.
P2- TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF THE ORDER OF THE
GOVERNMENT DATED 7.12.2010.
P3- TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE GAZETTE OF INDIA
DATED 13.3.2010.
P4- TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT)NO.1368/2011/H.EDN DATED
27.8.2011.
P5- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 03.03.2012 OF THE HIGHER
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT OF KERALA.
P6- TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O.MS NO.66/90 HEDN.
DATED 13.3.1990.
P7- TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(P)NO.81/90/HEDN. DATED 27.3.1990.
P8- TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O.(RT)
NO.1940/2012/H.EDN. DATED 18.9.2012.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
NIL
TRUE COPY
P.S. TO JUDGE
EL
ANU SIVARAMAN, J.
-----------------------------------------------
W.P(C).No. 12816 of 2013
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 21st March, 2017
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed challenging Exhibits P1, P5 and P8 orders. The issue raised is with regard to exemption from Ph.D qualification for appointment as Professor in a Private Engineering College.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Senior Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel for the Calicut University.
3. The petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in Mechanical Engineering in a private Engineering College as per Exhibit P1 order dated 2.3.1991 and he joined the service on 6.3.1991. The petitioner acquired Ph.D qualification on 24.7.2012. Exhibit P2 Government order dated 7.12.2010 provided for revision of pay scale of teachers covered by AICTE Scheme. Clause 5.7 of Exhibit P2 provided that no person shall be eligible to be appointed, promoted or designated as Professor unless he or she possesses a Ph.D and satisfies other academic conditions as laid down by the AICTE from time to time. An exemption was provided in Exhibit P2 to the effect that those who are already WP(C).12816/13 2 designated as Professor and those who were appointed from PSC lists or selection lists, which were live as on 27.3.1990, i.e., the date of the application of the AICTE scheme by the Government were exempted from possessing Ph.D. The petitioner, who was appointed on 2.3.1991, was not entitled to the benefit of the said exemption clause. Thereafter, Exhibit P5 order was issued bringing about an amendment to Exhibit P2 and stating that the exemption clause as per clause 5.7 shall be made applicable to all those who joined service as Lecturers in Government/Aided Engineering Colleges in the State before 27.3.1990. This order is now under challenge on the ground that the fixing of a cut off date for the exemption clause was not informed by the AICTE.
4. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that Exhibit P7 Government order dated 27.3.1990 made the AICTE applicable to teachers of Engineering Colleges with effect from 1.1.1986. It is, therefore, contended that the fixing of the cut off date as 27.3.1990 to the date of reoption has no rationale. It is further submitted that Ph.D was made a qualification for promotion as Professor only by later orders issued in the year 2006. It is, therefore, contended that the insistence that persons appointed long prior to such date shall WP(C).12816/13 3 not be promoted or designated as Professors unless they are appointed before 27.3.1990 is clearly discrimination and is illegal.
5. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 1st respondent wherein it is contended that the Engineering College Teachers in the State are governed by the AICTE scheme and that all persons claiming appointment, promotion or designation as Professor should possess a Ph.D and satisfy all other qualifications laid down by the AICTE.
6. It is true that the exemption was granted only to those persons, who were appointed before 27.3.1990, which is the date of the Government order by which the AICTE scheme was first made applicable to the State of Kerala. The Apex Court as well as this Court in a long line of decisions unequivocally held that once UGC or AICTE schemes, which are schemes framed under competent central legislations, are made applicable to a State by an order of the State Government, such schemes would apply in full and no Government orders, statutes or other provisions contained in the University Laws would have any application to the matters covered by the schemes. In the above view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the date of the order making the scheme applicable to the State is a WP(C).12816/13 4 relevant consideration as far as the implementation of an exemption clause is also concerned. It appears that by Exhibit P5, the exemption has been made operative to all appointments made on or before 27.3.1990. I do not see any illegality in the fixation of the said date as a cut off date for the operation of the exemption clause. This is more so, in view of the fact that the predating of the exemption to any earlier date will not help the petitioner. I am not impressed with the arguments raised to the effect that fixing of the cut off date is arbitrary and illegal.
In the above view of the matter, this writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE vgs27/3