Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Surendra Mohan, J.

The petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 27017 of 2017 are before us challenging the judgment dated 11.4.2018 of the learned Single Judge dismissing the same.

2. The appellants are working as Assistant Professors in Sree Sankara College, Kalady which is a College affiliated to the Mahatma Gandhi University. All of them entered service on various dates in the year 2005 and have been continuously working, ever since. The UGC has under

the UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Other Measures for the Maintenance of the Standards of Higher Education, 2010 ('UGC Regulations, 2010' for short) stipulated guidelines for selection for the Career Advancement Schemes for teachers and other academic staff in Universities and Colleges. As per the Scheme, what is stipulated is a Performance Based Appraisal System (PBAS) where an analysis of the merit and credentials of an incumbent is made on the basis of weightage given to the performance of each teacher based on Academic Performance Indicators (API). Though the Regulations were issued in the year 2010 with a stipulation that the PBAS was to be implemented within a period of three months therefrom, it is pointed out by the appellants that no action was taken for implementing the same by the MG University. Consequently, no system of objectively recording the performance of teachers either in the Colleges or the University was followed. Later on, the system of PBAS was modified by an Amendment in 2013 and still later in the year 2016 by the UGC. It was only thereafter that, the MG University issued Ext.P2 on 23.2.2017 containing the necessary stipulations for implementing the PBAS. The appraisal form that had to be submitted by each incumbent is evidenced by Ext.P3 Pro forma. Since as per Ext.P2, the requirement of satisfying a performance based assessment is given effect to from 2010 onwards, it is contended by the appellants that they are seriously prejudiced. In view of the various parameters on which data is required to be furnished as per Ext.P3, it is contended that, the whole system would be unworkable. Consequently, the appellants would be denied their rightful promotions to the higher posts, such as Associate Professor, Professor and so on. Therefore, they had filed the writ petition seeking the issue of a writ of certiorari, setting aside Ext.P2 to the extent, the API score based PBAS for Career Advancement was given effect to from 2010 onwards.

3. The contentions of the petitioners were opposed by the University by filing a counter affidavit. According to the University, the UGC Scheme had been approved by the Government with effect from 18.9.2010 and the appellants were being paid higher salary under the said Scheme. According to the counter affidavit, the University had adopted the Scheme and notified the requirements of the Scheme by University letter dated 1.8.2011 and that Ext.P2 was only an amendment thereof. Therefore, the contention that the API score based on performance was introduced only in the year 2017 giving retrospective effect from 2010 was denied. Reliance was placed on the dictum of a Full Bench of this Court in Dr. Radhakrishna Pillai v. Travancore Devaswom Board (2016 (2) K.L.T. 245 (245)) to contend that, the provisions of the UGC Regulations were applicable to all the Universities and Colleges without any specific adoption by the University concerned. Therefore, it was contended that the writ petition was only to be dismissed.

5. According to Adv. Liju V. Stephen, though it is true that the UGC had issued its Regulations in the year 2010, no action was taken thereon in the matter of implementation of PBAS by the University in spite of the stipulation in the Notification itself that such implementation had to be done within a period of three months. In view of the above, nothing was done in the matter of implementation of the PBAS. Therefore, no record of the data that is necessary for conducting an assessment on the basis of API scores was maintained by the teachers or by the College. Even the UGC had amended the Regulations in the years 2013 and 2016. It was only much later that the University had issued Ext.P2 in the year 2017. In view of the above state of affairs, it is contended that, there is no justification for insisting on compliance with Ext.P2 from the year 2010 onwards. It is contended that, implementation of Ext.P2 with effect from 2010 causes a lot of prejudice to the teachers including the petitioners. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, Ext.P2 is liable to be set aside, to the extent it seeks to implement the appraisal system with effect from 2010 onwards. The counsel also points out that, in the matter of promotion as Principal, the Government of Kerala has, recognizing the difficulties involved, issued G.O.(P) No. 10/2017/H.Edn. Dated 19.3.2017, relaxing the requirement of appraisal on the basis of API scores and permitting promotions on the basis of other parameters. In view of the above, it is contended that, the same approach ought to have been adopted in the case of petitioners also.

7. We have heard the learned Government Pleader as well as Sri. S. Krishnamoorthy, who appears for the University.

8. The UGC Regulations, 2010 had come into force on 18.9.2010. The PBAS on the basis of API scores had been introduced by the said Regulations. As per the UGC Regulations, higher salaries have been granted to persons like appellants and the UGC was of the view that further promotions, would have to be effected only on the basis of the performance of individual teachers. It was with the said objective that PBAS on the basis of API scores was introduced. We find that though UGC Regulations 2010 required the University to implement the Scheme within a period of three months therefrom, Exts.P2 and P3 were issued only in the year 2017. It may be true that, the Principals of Colleges have not maintained the record of the data that is required to be furnished as per Ext.P3. However, since the UGC Regulations have been implemented with effect from 18.9.2010, the appellants, other teachers and the Colleges had sufficient notice regarding the system of appraisal that was contemplated by the UGC. Therefore, it was necessary for the parties to have maintained the necessary records. If at all, any difficulty in the said regard is pointed out to the satisfaction of the University or to the Government, the authorities can certainly relax the requirements as has been done in the case of the promotion of Principals by G.O.(P) No. 10/2017/H.Edn dated 19.3.2017. However, the fact that such relaxation has been granted or the further fact that there was delay on the part of the University in implementing the system cannot be taken advantage of by the petitioners, the Colleges or other teachers to contend that the system should be implemented only from the date of Ext.P2. The appellants are persons who have taken advantage of the UGC Regulations and drawn the higher pay stipulated therein. Therefore, they cannot contend that they should not be burdened with the responsibilities that are attached to the very same Regulations. We have been taken through the data that is required by Ext.P3. We are not satisfied that Ext.P3 contains any requirement which is impossible to be satisfied.