ABDUL HAKEEM M. A. vs MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2019 Supreme(SC) 235

UDAY UMESH LALIT, INDIRA BANERJEE
ABDUL HAKEEM M. A. – Appellant
Versus
MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appearing Parties : Dr. S. Gopakumaran Nair, Sr. Adv. Mr. C. N. Sree Kumar, AOR Ms. Priya Balakrishnan, Adv. Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. Ms. M.B. Pillai, Adv. Ms. Praseena Elizabeth Joseph, AOR Mr. Siddharth Luthra, Sr. Adv. Ms. Sakshi Kakkar, AOR Shakti Singh, Adv. Mr. G. Prakash, AOR Mr. Jishnu M.L., Adv. Ms. Priyanka Prakash, Adv. Ms. Beena Prakash, Adv.

JUDGMENT

Uday Umesh Lalit. J.

Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 4251-4252 of 2018

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellants question the judgment and orders passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam (i) dated 20.11.2015 in Writ Appeal No. 442 of 2014 arising from Original Petition No. 3818 of 2003 and (ii) dated 20.09.2017 in Review Petition No. 151 of 2016 in Writ Appeal No. 442 of 2014.

3. According to the appellants, they were appointed against substantive posts created by the Resolution of the Syndicate of Mahatma Gandhi University ('the University', for short) at AICTE (:All India Council for Technical Education) scales of pay, through selection processes which were in complete compliance of the provisions of the concerned University Statutes; and, on completion of one year of service, the University declared the appellants to have satisfactorily completed their probation. But the University refused to implement pay revision to the teachers so appointed includin

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2019 Supreme(SC) 235

UDAY UMESH LALIT, INDIRA BANERJEEABDUL HAKEEM M. A. – AppellantVersusMAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY – Respondent

UDAY UMESH LALIT, INDIRA BANERJEE
ABDUL HAKEEM M. A. – Appellant
Versus
MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY – Respondent