The Institute Of Human Resources ... vs Yasim Khan.M on 7 January, 2026

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

The Institute Of Human Resources ... vs Yasim Khan.M on 7 January, 2026

The 1st respondent in W.P.(C) No.19627 of 2015 filed this writ appeal under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, challenging the judgment dated 30.08.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in that writ petition.

2. The respondents 1 to 8-writ petitioners filed W.P.(C) No.19627 of 2015 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:

"(i) Declare that denial of full salary and allowance to the petitioners during the period of deputation for QIP as done in Exts.P5 & P11 is illegal and unconstitutional;

(ii) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for Exts.P5 & P11 and quash the same to the extent they deny full salary and allowances to the petitioners during the period of QIP deputation by limiting it to the Basic Pay and Academic Grade pay;

(iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent to give full salary and allowances to the petitioners during the term of QIP deputation pursuant to Ext.P4;

(iv) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent to issue sponsorship Certificate to the petitioners in the formats evidenced by Exts.P2 & P10 in accordance with Exts.P1 & P3 4 WA No.2314 of 2018 2026:KER:1839 by granting them full salary and allowance during the period of QIP deputation".

3. Going by the averments in the writ petition, respondents 1 to 8 are Assistant Professors in Engineering colleges run by the appellant. They are engineering graduates, which was the qualification for a teaching post at the time of their appointment. The appellant has implemented Quality Improvement Programme ('QIP' for short) by deputation for completing M. Tech./Ph.D., etc., in accordance with the norms and guidelines laid down by the 9th respondent University Grants Commission ('UGC' for short). As per the QIP programme notified as per Ext.P1 order dated 25.04.2005, as approved by the Executive Committee of the appellant, candidates are eligible for normal salary and allowance during the deputation period. Applications for M. Tech admission during 2015-16 in the quota earmarked for the QIP programme was invited as per Ext.P3 notification dated 29.09.2014 issued by the appellant in terms of Ext.P1 order dated 25.04.2005, revising the terms and conditions of the QIP as approved by the executive committee of the appellant. The respondents 1 to 8 applied and got admission. 5 WA No.2314 of 2018

2026:KER:1839 Before joining, they have to produce a sponsorship certificate, failing which the admission will be lost. In the sponsorship certificate, instead of full pay and allowances, the appellant has endorsed only basic pay and grade pay. In other words, full salary and allowances during the deputation assured in Exts. P1 & P3 are deprived to respondents 1 to 8. In view of the terms and conditions in Ext. P1 notified scheme, the appellant is estopped from unilaterally retrieving the same. Such action also goes against the legitimate expectation of the respondents 1 to 8. Unless the assured sponsorship certificate is produced, the respondents 1 to 8 may not be offered admission under the QIP quota. Hence they filed the writ petition.

4. In the writ petition, along with I.A.No.10620 of 2015, the appellant has produced Ext.R1(a) order dated 29.06.2015 passed by the Director of the appellant Institute. To that interlocutory application, the 1st respondent, on behalf of the respondents 2 to 8 herein, filed a counter affidavit dated 24.07.2015. The appellant has filed another additional affidavit dated 31.07.2015 in the writ petition in continuation of the affidavit sworn to along with I.A. No.10620 of 2015. 6 WA No.2314 of 2018

2026:KER:1839

5. After hearing both sides and on appreciation of materials on record, the learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment dated 30.08.2018 allowed the writ petition directing the appellant to pay full pay and allowances to respondents 1 to 8- writ petitioners, during the period of their deputation in accordance with Ext.P1 order and further directed to disburse the full pay and allowances within a period of three months.

6. Being aggrieved, the appellant is now before this Court with the present writ appeal.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 8-writ petitioners, the learned Standing Counsel for the 9th respondent UGC and the learned Standing Counsel for the 10th respondent All India Council for Technical Education ('AICTE' for short).

8. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that there is no mandatory obligation on the part of the appellant institution to implement QIP. It was only a policy decision adopted by the appellant to implement QIP, and in order to facilitate the same, initially, full pay and allowance were granted to the faculty on deputation for 7 WA No.2314 of 2018 2026:KER:1839 QIP. Due to the financial conditions of the appellant, the policy decision was later altered, limiting the pay to basic pay and allowances. Hence, the direction of the learned Single Judge to pay full salary and allowances to the writ petitioners is illegal.

9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 8 - writ petitioners submitted that the respondents 1 to 8 applied for the course based on Ext.P1 decision of the appellant dated 25.04.2005. The select list was published on 27.11.2014. After respondents 1 to 8 got admissions in various colleges, the appellant made the decision to restrict the pay. The appellant cannot take a decision depriving the right already accrued to the respondents 1 to 8. The learned Single Judge rightly appreciated these facts and passed the impugned judgment.

10. Ext.P1 order of the appellant dated 25.04.2005 stipulates the terms and conditions of QIP as approved by its Executive Committee, on the basis of which the respondents 1 to 8-writ petitioners applied for QIP. Clause 6 of Ext.P1 says that the candidate will be paid his normal pay and allowance during the period of deputation. Clause 7 of Ext.P1 stipulates that no TA/DA 8 WA No.2314 of 2018 2026:KER:1839 will be paid by the appellant for the purpose. It was based on Ext.P1, the appellant issued Ext.P3 notification dated 29.09.2014, inviting applications for QIP, and the respondents 1 to 8 got selected and obtained admissions in various colleges. Ext.P5 and P11 are the sponsorship certificates dated 19.06.2015 and 16.06.2015 issued to respondents 1 and 8, respectively, which are relied upon by the appellant to contend that respondents 1 to 8 are entitled to only the basic pay + academic grade pay as mentioned in those certificates during the period of deputation.

11. As noted above, it is on the basis of Ext.P1 order dated 25.04.2005, revising the terms and conditions of QIP, the respondents 1 to 8-writ petitioners applied for deputation to undergo M.Tech Programme, when the applications were called for by Ext.P3 notification dated 29.09.2014. The applications were evaluated by the screening committee, and the appellant published Ext.P4 notification dated 27.11.2014 showing the list of selected candidates for deputation to Ph.D/M.Tech programme for the academic year 2015-2016. The respondents 1 to 8-writ petitioners are included in the select list for QIP deputation for M.Tech. It was thereafter Exts.P5 and P11 sponsorship certificates 9 WA No.2314 of 2018 2026:KER:1839 dated 19.06.2015 and 16.06.2015 were issued to respondents 1 and 8, by the appellant, modifying the condition regarding payment of salary and allowance as basic pay and academic grade pay at the place of normal pay and allowance stated in Ext.P1. As rightly found by the learned Single Judge, when applications are invited on the basis of Ext.P1 guidelines and finalised by Ext.P4 notification dated 27.11.2014, later the appellant cannot unilaterally change the terms and conditions in Ext.P1, restricting the pay, especially when respondents 1 to 8 - writ petitioners, got admission in various colleges. The appellant is estopped from taking such a stand, when respondents 1 to 8 - writ petitioners acted on believing the terms and conditions stated in Ext.P1.

12. Though during the course of arguments the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant institution is not bound to follow UGC guidelines, since the QIP programme implemented by the appellant is not based on UGC guidelines but on the basis of programme monitored by the 10th respondent, such an observation made by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition alone is not a ground to discard the remaining findings arrived at by the learned Single Judge based on the terms and 10 WA No.2314 of 2018 2026:KER:1839 conditions in Ext.P1.

13. Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and the submissions made at the Bar, we find no ground to hold that the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge is perverse or illegal, which warrants interference of this Court by exercising appellate jurisdiction.

In the result, the writ appeal stands dismissed.

Sd/-

ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE Sd/-

sks                                   MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
                                    11




WA No.2314 of 2018

                                                       2026:KER:1839


                     APPENDIX OF WA NO. 2314 OF 2018

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

ANNEXURE A1             TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OF QUALITY
                        IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMME ADOPTED BY THE 10TH
                        RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE A2             TRUE COPY OF THE GUIDELINES FOR THE SPECIAL

SCHEME OF FACULTY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME FOR COLLEGES FOR THE TWELFTH PLAN (2012-2017) ISSUED BY THE 9TH RESPONDENT.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court