Kerala High Court
B.Soniya vs Kerala State Road Transport ... on 28 February, 2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR
SATURDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2014/29TH AGRAHAYANA, 1936
WP(C).No. 33858 of 2011 (F)
----------------------------
PETITIONER:
--------------
B.SONIYA, ASST.PROFESSOR
DEPARTMENT OF COMPUTER SCIENCE
SREE CHITRA TIRUNAL COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING,
PAPPANAMCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 018.
BY ADVS.SRI.M.R.ANISON
SMT.K.P.GEETHA MANI
SMT.P.A.RINUSA
RESPONDENTS:
-----------------
1. KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION SREE CHITRA
TIRUNAL COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING SOCIETY
PAPPANAMCODE, TRIVANDRUM - 695 018 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE PRINCIPAL, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
SREE CHITRA TIRUNAL COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING SOCIETY
PAPPANAMCODE, TRIVANDRUM - 695 018.
3. THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, PALAYAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR-695 18.
R3 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM,SC,KERALA UTY.
R2 BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J.
R2 BY ADV. SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA, SC, SREE CHITRA
THIRUNAL COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
R3 BY S.C. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM SC, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
20-12-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 33858 of 2011 (F)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED
28.2.2006.
EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.5132/2009 DATED
31.7.2009.
EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENTDATED
31.03.2008.
EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION LETTER ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 16.3.2010.
EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED
22.09.2009.
EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED
28.5.2011.
EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED
26.9.2011.
EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE GUIDELINES ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
DATED 17.07.2007.
EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
DATED 3.9.2011.
EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS
MEETING HELD ON 2.8.2011.
EXT.P11: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED
4.11.2010.
EXT.P12: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR TO THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 28.12.2010.
EXT.P13: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED
20.6.2005.
EXT.P14: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED
13.11.2006.
EXT.P15: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED
AUGUST, 2011.
WP(C).No. 33858 of 2011 (F)
EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE PETITIONER ALONG
WITH LEAVE WITHOUT ALLOWANCE APPLICATION.
EXT.P17: TRUE COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 26.9.2011.
EXT.P18: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 3.6.2003.
EXT.P19: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.8.2005.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE R1(a): TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT
DATED 3.4.2007 IN AGENDA ITEM NO.33.
ANNEXURE R1(b): TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF ITEM NO.41 DATED
6.10.2008 OF THE 41ST MEETING OF THE 1ST
RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE R1(c): TRUE COPY OF CLAUSE xii OF GO(MS)NO.83/83/H.Edn. DATED
2.5.1983 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT.
ANNEXURE R1(d): TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE DATED
13.9.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER, UNDER RULE
91A OF PART I OF KSR.
// TRUE COPY //
TKS
P.S. TO JUDGE
C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J.
----------------------------
W.P.(C)No.33858 of 2011
----------------------------
Dated 20th December, 2014
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is an Associate Professor under the first respondent. This writ petition has been filed seeking quashment of Ext.P6 on the ground of being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and for a declaration that the action on the part of respondents 1 and 2 in directing the petitioner to undergo Ph.D programme on full time basis after availing leave without allowance under Rule 91(A) of Part I KSR is against Ext.P8 guidelines. The further prayer is for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 and 2 to permit the petitioner to undergo Ph.D course with full salary during the deputation period, as has been done in the case of Smt.B.Geetha Kumari as per Ext.P5 order, and not on leave without allowance under Rule 91(A) of Part I KSR.
2. The facts in succinct relevant for the purpose of the disposal of this writ petition are as follows:-
The petitioner joined the service of the first respondent as a Lecturer on 28.7.1999 and thereafter, she was appointed as Assistant Professor as per Ext.P1 order dated 28.2.2006. Though the petitioner WP(C).No.33858/2011 2 described Ext.P1 as an order of promotion a scanning of the same would reveal that it is in fact, an order of appointment pursuant to a selection from among the lecturers working in the Sree Chitra Thirunal College of Engineering, Thiruvananthapuram. Ext.P1 ordained that the appointees including the petitioner herein shall obtain Ph.D Degree within seven years from the date of posting. In view of the specific direction in Ext.P1 and with a view to secure Ph.D Degree within the time stipulated in Ext.P1 the petitioner thought it fit to register as a research student for acquiring Ph.D Degree and accordingly, got registered as a research student under the third respondent on part-time basis. Subsequently, the petitioner requested for permission to pursue with the said course on full time basis on deputation. The said request of the petitioner was rejected as per Ext.P4 order dated 16.3.2010 and it would reveal that the said request of the petitioner was rejected for the reason that the Board of Directors of the first respondent/Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Sree Chitra Thirunal College of Engineering Society took a decision that the faculty members should be encouraged for higher studies only in institutes of national repute/centres of excellence like IITs, IISc and NITs. It is on that ground that the proposal for conversion of part time Ph.D Degree of the petitioner into full time programme on deputation basis was rejected. Ext.P4 would also reveal that earlier the WP(C).No.33858/2011 3 Board had taken a decision to limit the maximum number of persons to be deputed for higher studies as two at a time. Subsequently, the petitioner made another request on 11.3.2011 carrying the same prayer viz., one for converting the part time Ph.D to full time Ph.D. The said request was rejected as per Ext.P6 dated 28.5.2011. As per the same, the request was again rejected on the ground that similar request which was placed before the 50th meeting of the Board of Governors held on 9.6.2011 was rejected. As per Ext.P6, it was decided to grant leave without allowance under Rule 91A of Part I KSR to the petitioner for doing Ph.D programme on full time basis. It is in the said circumstances that this writ petition has been filed with the aforesaid prayers.
3. To substantiate the contentions mounted against Ext.P6 the petitioner relied on Exts.P5, P13 to P15, P18 and P19. Essentially, the contention of the petitioner is that the said documents would reflect the invidious discrimination shown to her in the matter of deputation. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the reason assigned in Ext.P4 became inconsequential and insignificant by the subsequent decision of the Board of Directors to include the third respondent University, as well, for the purpose of sending teaching staff for undergoing or granting permission to teaching staff to undergo, the WP(C).No.33858/2011 4 Doctorate courses/Post Graduate courses under the Quality Improvement Programme. The fact that such a decision was taken by the first respondent is evident from Ext.P8.
4. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have filed a statement and along with the same Annexures R1(a) to (d) were produced. The contention of respondent Nos.1 and 2 is that the Government have earlier taken a decision as is obvious from Annexure R1(c). They gave stress to clause
(xii) in Annexure R1(c) dated 2.5.1983 which reads thus:-
"xii. All applications for grant of deputation will be placed before the screening committee of the Colleges concerned. Only candidates selected by the Screening committee will be sponsored for the QIP by the Government. A reserved list will also be drawn up by the screening committee. In case the first candidate does not secure admission the persons from the reserve list will be deputed in order of their rank in the list."
According to the respondents Annexure R1(a) would reveal that clause (xii) in Ext.R1(c) was adopted. It is the contention of respondents 1 and 2 that in the light of Annexure R1(a) whereby Annexure R1(c) was adopted screening committees would be constituted as and when request for deputation is made by the staff members. It is submitted that as per WP(C).No.33858/2011 5 Annexure R1(c) deputation is possible and permissible only in respect of persons who have been screened by the committee constituted in terms of Annexure R1(a). It is the contention that the petitioner had not put any application for deputation before registering as a research student under the third respondent and in fact what was done by the petitioner is only seeking permission for converting the part time course to full time course on deputation after joining the course on part time basis. In other words, according to them, the petitioner had not undergone the process of screening and the screening committee had not recommended for sponsoring the petitioner for study purpose pursuant to Annexure R1
(a) decision. That apart, it is contended that subsequent to the rejection of the second request made by the petitioner on 11.3.2011 as per Ext.P6 and the consequential direction to apply for grant of leave without allowances under Rule 91A of Part I KSR the petitioner had applied for leave without allowances and she was also granted leave without allowances in tune with the decision in Ext.P6. It is the further contention that though the petitioner has produced Ext.P6 which would reveal the rejection of the request of the petitioner made for converting part time Ph.D to full time Ph.D in Computer Science and Engineering under the Department of Computer Science, University of Kerala and the decision of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to grant leave without allowances to WP(C).No.33858/2011 6 the petitioner under Rule 91A of Part I KSR and a consequential order was passed as per Ext.P7 in terms of the said position the petitioner has not chosen to challenge Ext.P7. In other words, it is the contention that the petitioner had complied with the direction in Ext.P6 and submitted an application for leave without allowances for study purpose under Rule 91A of Part I KSR and in such circumstances, the petitioner cannot turn around and challenge Ext.P6 especially without mounting any challenge against Ext.P7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that though it is correct to say that the Board of Directors has decided to allow the teaching staff to undergo higher studies in AICTE approved courses in Engineering Departments in Kerala University campus, the Board made it clear that such permission would be granted only on case to case basis. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents further submitted that despite the decision in Ext.P8 to allow teaching staff to undergo higher studies under the third respondent, as has been made clear in Ext.P8, the claim for deputation for undergoing higher studies under the third respondent being taken up for consideration only on case to case basis. It is submitted that earlier on such consideration it was found that the facilities for undergoing higher studies in the particular course chosen by the petitioner are not up to the standard which is available in the institutes of national WP(C).No.33858/2011 7 repute/centres of excellence like the IITs, IISc and NITs etc. and therefore, no decision could be taken as one disregarding or deviating from Ext.P8.
5. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2.
6. From the rival contentions, it is evident that the petitioner had not actually applied for deputation prior to the joining for the course and participated in the screening test required to be done in accordance with the mandates in Annexure- R1(a). It is also true that the petitioner on her own volition joined the part time course to undergo Ph.D and thereafter sought only for converting the said course to a full time Ph.D. In other words, the petitioner requested the authorities to permit her to pursue with the said course with full salary after getting it converted as full time study during the deputation period. Ext.P6 would reveal that the said request of the petitioner was rejected. That apart, it is contended that pursuant to the rejection of the request of the petitioner as per Ext.P6, she was directed to apply for grant of LWA in terms of Rule 91A Part I KSR. It is also evident that without any demur, the WP(C).No.33858/2011 8 petitioner applied for LWA and that was granted to the petitioner taking into account the decision in Ext.P6. Under normal circumstances, in view of the facts thus obtained there will not be any scope for a further consideration of the matter. But, the petitioner got a specific case that in the case of another lecturer by name Kavitha working along with the petitioner in the very same department, she too applied for deputation for undergoing M.Tech. Course. It is the contention that in the case of said Kavitha, based on Ext.P10, all the benefits were granted to her. It is further contended that in the case of another lecturer by name Smt.Geethakumari, she initially obtained only a part time registration for doing Ph.D and thereafter she made a request for conversion of the part time registration on deputation basis and it was granted by the very same respondents vide Ext.P5. It is also the contention of the petitioner that though initially the College of Engineering, Kerala University Campus was not recognised by the first respondent for undergoing Ph.D programme, as per Ext.P5, Geethakumari was extended with the benefit for undergoing Ph.D programme in Kerala University Campus. It is also contended that though as per Ext.P4, relying on an earlier decision of the Board of Directors of the first respondent that the faculty members should be encouraged for higher studies in the institutes of national repute/centres of excellence like IITs, IISc and NITs, the Department of WP(C).No.33858/2011 9 Computer Science and Engineering in the University of Kerala was also recognised later, as an institution for undergoing Ph.D course. In such circumstances, the contention of the petitioner is that the earlier decision virtually pales into insignificance and it cannot any further stand as an impediment in the matter of consideration of her request. Evidently, while rejecting the case of the petitioner, the fact that under similar circumstances the other teachers, whose names were mentioned before, were granted benefits, was not at all taken into consideration. The question whether they are similarly situated to the petitioner and whether the petitioner could also be extended with such benefits were not properly considered with application of mind. In such circumstances, one should keep reminded of the salutary maxim "parium eadem est ratio, idem jus' which means "of things equal, the reason and the law is the same". In such circumstances, I am of the view that the respondents are bound to consider the request of the petitioner afresh taking into account the case of Geethakumari who has been extended with such benefits under Ext.P5 order. If the said person is similarly situated to the petitioner, I am afraid, there will not be any justification for the respondents to reject the claim of the petitioner solely because she has submitted application for LWA pursuant to Ext.P6 and the same was granted. In other words, respondents shall consider the claim of the WP(C).No.33858/2011 10 petitioner for granting permission for doing the Ph.D course on full time basis with full salary during the deputation period taking into consideration the case of Geethakumari whose claim was considered favourably under Ext.P5. The respondents shall make such a consideration and take a decision as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Subject to the result of such consideration, the entitlement of the petitioner for consequential benefits shall be worked out.
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS/spc