IMPORTANT POINT
The Syndicate of the University could not have second guessed the selection of the petitioner and the consequent recommendation made for his appointment by the Selection Committee. The decision of the Syndicate of the University to defer the approval to the appointment of the petitioner, and the delay occasioned later to take a decision with regard to his claim for coverage under the Statutory Pension Scheme, were against the settled principles laid down by this Court as regards the power of the syndicate to act in such circumstances and the Syndicate of the University could not have conducted itself in a manner contrary to what was contemplated under the University Statute.

JUDGMENT :

A.K. JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.

1. The University of Kerala, its Registrar and the Syndicate are the appellants in this Writ Appeal, aggrieved by the judgment dated 22.10.2020 of the learned Single Judge. The brief facts necessary for a disposal of the Writ Appeal are as follows.

2. The petitioner in the Writ Petition had responded to a Notification inviting applications for the post of Lecturers in various departments of the Kerala University, including the Institute of Management in Kerala, on 17.06.2011. It is not in dispute that the petitioner possessed the required qualification stipulated in the Notification for appointment as a Lecturer. In fact, the Selection Committee, which met on 06.11.2012 recommended the petitioner for selection as Lecturer and placed the said recommendation before the Syndicate of the University for approval. The Syndicate of the University that met to consider the recommendation of the Selection Committee approved the selection of four other persons, who had applied for posts in other Departments, but deferred the approval of the petitioner's selection, on the ground that, there were allegations pending as regards the conduct of the petitioner. This led the petitioner to approach this Court through W.P. (C) No. 7565 of 2013 that was disposed by Ext.P1 judgment dated 18.08.2015 holding that inasmuch as the procedure prescribed under the Statute envisaged that recommendations of the Selection Committee shall be placed before the Syndicate, which shall make the appointments, the role of the Syndicate was only to approve the recommendations and it could not hesitate from taking a decision as such. The learned Judge, therefore, directed the University to place the proceedings of the Selection Committee in respect of the selection of the petitioner to the post of Lecturer in the Institute of Management in Kerala before the Syndicate at its next Meeting, and to take emergent proceedings for his appointment without any further delay. It was also observed that inasmuch as the petitioner was illegally and arbitrarily denied the appointment, which was due in January 2013, the University should also consider his claim for grant of benefits as in the case of those appointed before 01.04.2013.

3. It would be relevant to notice at this stage that the benefit sought for by the petitioner, and which was alluded to in the 2nd direction of the learned Single Judge in the judgment referred above, was essentially with regard to the lost opportunity of the petitioner for claiming the benefit of continuing under the Statutory Pension Scheme under the Kerala Service Rules (hereinafter referred to as ‘the KSR’) as against the newly introduced National Pension Scheme that was made applicable to those appointed subsequent to 01.04.2013 in the University. The contention of the petitioner was essentially that, inasmuch as others who had responded to the very same Notification to which he had responded, had been duly recommended for selection by the Selection Committee and had been appointed as such prior to 01.04.2013, thereby obtaining the benefit of opting for the Statutory Pension Scheme under the KSR, the said benefit of option had to be extended to the petitioner also.

4. It would appear that the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 18.08.2015 was taken in appeal by a 3rd person but the said appeal was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court. Acting on the directions in the judgment of the learned Single Judge, however, the University proceeded to appoint the petitioner as Lecturer with effect from 02.06.2016. In view of the introduction of the National Pension Scheme, in the meanwhile, it was the stand of the University that the petitioner, who was appointed as Lecturer would necessarily come under the ambit of the National Pension Scheme and could not claim the benefit of continuing under the Statutory Pension Scheme under the KSR. This led the petitioner to approach this Court through W.P. (C) No. 8587