Kerala High Court
Union Of India vs Rajkumar.R on 11 November, 2020
Author: Shaji P.Chaly
Bench: Shaji P.Chaly
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 20TH KARTHIKA, 1942
RP.No.796 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 4117/2018
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 4117/2018(L) OF HIGH COURT OF
KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/S:
1 UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, DEPARTMENT OF SCIENCE AND
TECHNOLOGY, TECHNOLOGY BHAVAN, NEW MEHRAULI ROAD, NEW
DELHI-110 016.
2 INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
VALIYAMALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 547, REPRESENTED
BY ITS REGISTRAR.
BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR
RESPONDENT/S:
1 RAJKUMAR.R
AGED 28 YEARS
S/O. RAJAN PILLAI K., RESIDING AT REVATHY,
VADAKKUMTHALA P.O., KARUNAGAPALLY, KOLLAM-690 536,
PHD RESEARCH SCHOLAR, DEPARTMENT OF HUMANITIES,
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SPACE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,
VALIYAMALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 547.
2 ANU KURIAKOSE
PHD RESEARCH SCHOLAR, DEPARTMENT OF HUMANITIES,
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SPACE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,
VALIYAMALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 547.
3 MUHAMMAD SIHAS K.M.
PHD RESEARCH SCHOLAR, DEPARTMENT OF HUMANITIES,
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SPACE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,
VALIYAMALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 547.
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
RP.No.796 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 4117/2018
2
ORDER
Dated this the 11th day of November 2020 This review petition is filed by respondents 1 to 2 in the writ petition contending as follows:
A. The second respondent was not heard by this Hon'ble Court as is evident from the Judgment itself. As such the 2 nd respondent could not submit the true facts before this Hon'ble Court. The Clause 9.1.1(a) of Exhibit P12 PhD rules and regulations of the Second Respondent was under challenge in the Writ Petition and same is quashed.
B. As per Exhibits P1, P2 and P3, the petitioners got admissions accepting all the conditions therein including the monthly fellowship of Rs.12,000/-. Petitioners who qualified only the Lectureship test under UGC NET examination are not entitled for any stipend scholarship or felloship as per UGC orders. The first petitioner is yet to qualify the UGC-NET-JRF test. However the fellowship of the petitioner was enhanced to Rs.14,000/- on completiton of Two year of Tenure as research Scholar. First petitioner will become entitled for the fellowship of Rs.25,000/- when he qualifies in UGC-NET-JRF test. The fellowship of Rs.12,000/- was enhanced was Rs.25,000/- for petitioners 2 and 3 with effect from the date the qualified UGC-NET-JRF examination. Hence the Judgments contains error apparent on the face of record.
C. As per DST/UGC/DOS orders, those from Arts/Humanities stream who qualify JRF under UGE NET JRF are only eligible for the fellowship of Rs.25,000/-. The petitioners who qualified only the Lectureship test under UGC-NET-Lectureship examination are not entitled for any stipend scholarship or fellowship as per UGC RP.No.796 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 4117/2018 3 orders. Those qualify only the NET-Lectureship Exam of UGC are entitled/qualified only for appointment as Lecture/Assistant Professor.
D. UGC orders are silent about the fellowship payable to 'Lectureship' qualified scholars from Arts/Humanities discipline if they are inducted for Ph.D program by any University/Institute. However IIST is paying them the fellowship of Rs.12,000/- Rs.14,000/- which was based on DST OM dated 31.03.2010 which prescribed the rate of fellowship to those qualified JRF as well as Lectureship examinations in respect of candidates from Science stream under CSIR-UGC-Net-JRF-Lectureship exam.
E. The petitioners 2 & 3 have been allowed the fellowship of Rs.25,000/- from the date of declaration of their JRF result. The First Petitioner does not fall under the said UGC/DOS orders as he is yet to qualify UGC-NET-JRF examination.
F. Since the Writ Petitioners cannot be equated with JRF as long as they are not qualified for JRF, they are not entitled for the enhanced fellowship of Rs.25,000/- payable to a JRF Scholar [both in science and humanities stream 6 under CSIR & UGC] and to a Lectureship scholar in the science stream under CSIR.
G. IIST has no responsibility or role in prescribing the criteria for payment of fellowship either to JRF or others as the same has been prescribed by DST/CSIR and UGC.
H. The IIST is not the authority to prescribe criteria for awarding fellowship to research scholars. Paying Fellowship under IIST fellowship Scheme to those not entitled for any stipend or fellowship under UGC cannot be used as a plank to contest for revised Fellowship on the grounds of discrimination etc. I. The judgment does not refer to the case of the 2 nd Petitioner. Based RP.No.796 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 4117/2018 4 on request of the 2nd Petitioner, IIST ordered to recover the amount excess payment of fellowship of Rs.62,261/- in 12 equal monthly instalment at Rs.5189/- starting from march 2017 onwards. The 12 th instalment is now pending for recovery and she has submitted her PhD thesis and not in the rolls of IIST at present.
J. The fellowship of both the 2 nd and 3rd Petitioners was revised to Rs.25,000/-pm from the date of declaration of result as per UGC guidelines. They are not eligible for revised fellowship from the date of their admission as contended by them.
K. This Hon'ble Court has considered the PhD scholars as staffs and applied equal pay for equal work principle. However, PhD scholar are Student and at the end of their course they are awarded PhD Degree. Equal pay for Equal work is applicable to equally qualified persons. For the above reasons, the judgment is liable to be reviewed."
2. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the review petitioners and the learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioners and perused the materials and pleadings on record.
3. In fact in spite of service of notice, the 2 nd respondent failed to appear before this Court, which is clearly recorded in the judgment. However, the writ petition was considered on its merits and found that the stipend paid to Lectures of Science and Humanities was discriminatory, and it was accordingly directed that an amount of Rs.25,000/- shall be paid to the Lectures of Humanities also.
The ground raised by the 2nd review petitioner in the review petition is that the review petitioner did not get sufficient opportunity to place the matter before this Court. However, I find that the grounds raised are all, RP.No.796 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 4117/2018 5 grounds challenging the findings contained in the judgment, which according to me cannot be raised as a ground to review the judgment rendered by this Court. That by itself cannot form as an error apparent on the face of the record so as to say that the judgment suffer from material irregularities. In that view of the matter, I do not think, the review petitioners have made out any ground justifying to review the judgment as is sought for. Needless to say, the review petition fails and it is dismissed accordingly.
Sd/-
SHAJI P.CHALY JUDGE Jm/