Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Ker) 436

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.B. SURESH KUMAR, C.S. SUDHA, JJ.
Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit, Rep. By Its Registrar & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Unnikrishna Pillai J., S/o. Janardhanan Pillai & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Appeal Nos.96, 98, 206, 325 & 352 of 2022
Decided On : 25-07-2022

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Shri. Prasanth S., SC, Shri. Dinesh Mathew J. Muricken, SC, Dinesh Mathew J. Muricken.
For the Respondent: Sri. S. Muhammed Haneef (B/O).

Point of Law: Absorption in service – As per UGC Regulations compensation to be paid for emoluments equal to the gross salary of regularly appointed Assistant Professors for the services rendered by them for a period of three years prior to the termination of their service less the emoluments already received by them for the said periods

Headnote:
Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit Act, 1994 - Appointment - Claim absorption as Assistant Professor in the regular establishment of Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit (the University) – Termination of Service – Entitlement of compensation for wrongful termination of Service.
Finding of the Court:
In the absence of a clear finding that they were discharging the same function as that of the regular Assistant Professors, the petitioners were not entitled to remuneration at par with that of the regular Assistant Professors in the University, we are of the view that they are entitled to be compensated. In the light of the UGC Regulations, according to us, they shall be paid, by way of compensation, emoluments equal to the gross salary of regularly appointed Assistant Professors for the services rendered by them for a period of three years prior to the termination of their service less the emoluments already received by them for the said periods.
Result : Disposed of

JUDGMENT :

P.B. Suresh Kumar, J.

1. The pivotal question that arises for consideration in these matters revolves around the right of the petitioners in the writ petitions from which the appeals have arisen to claim absorption as Assistant Professor in the regular establishment of Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit (the University), a University established in accordance with the provisions contained in the Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit Act, 1994 (the Act).

2. Before dealing with the said question, it is necessary to give an outline of the relevant facts as also a brief narrative of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties on either side.

3. W.A.Nos.96 of 2022 and 352 of 2022 are directed against the judgment in W.P.(C) No.3363 of 2018, of which W.A.No.96 of 2022 is by the University and its Vice Chancellor and W.A.No.352 of 2022 is by the petitioner therein. W.A.No.98 of 2022 is directed against the judgment in W.P.(C) No.29677 of 2016. The appellants therein are the University and its Registrar. W.A.Nos.206 of 2022 and 325 of 2022 are directed against the judgment in W.P.(C) No.15257 of 2021, of which W.A.No.325 of 2022 is by the University, its Vice Chancellor and its Regional Director and W.A.No.206 of 2022 is by the petitioner therein.

4. The parties are referred to in this judgment for convenience, as they appear in the writ petitions from which the writ appeals arise. Documents are referred to in this judgment, unless otherwise mentioned, as they appear in W.P. (C) No.15257 of 2021.

5. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.3363 of 2018 even though was appointed in the University on 01.01.1996 as a Lecturer in Malayalam, the said appointment was cancelled by the University pursuant to a decision of this court that the University was incompetent to make such an appointment. Later, the petitioner was engaged as Guest Lecturer in the University on contract basis from 09.12.1997 to 30.11.1998 and later from 22.01.1999 onwards continuously till the date of institution of the writ petition, except during vacations. In between, the post of Lecturer in the regular establishment of the University was re-designated as Assistant Professor. It is stated by the petitioner that his engagements on contract basis as Guest Lecturer were always after a due process of selection and that regular appointments were not being made in the University since required number of posts of Lecturer corresponding to the workload of the University were not sanctioned by the Government. It is also stated by the petitioner that even though several Guest Lecturers like the petitioner were similarly engaged on contract basis, they were absorbed in the regular establishment by the University as Assistant Professors in due course on their own and also based on the directions issued by this court, but the said benefit had not been extended to the petitioner on the pretext that there is dearth of vacancy in the concerned department. At last, in terms of Ext.P12 order in W.P.(C) No.3363 of 2018, the request of the petitioner for absorption was rejected by the Syndicate of the University. The writ petition aforesaid has been filed in the above background seeking a writ of mandamus directing the University to absorb the petitioner in the regular establishment as Assistant Professor in Malayalam. The case set out by the petitioner in the writ petition in essence is that he holds the requisite qualification for appointment as Assistant Professor; that he was engaged on contract basis after a due process of selection and that insofar as large number of similarly placed persons have been absorbed in the regular establishment of the University, he is entitled to the same treatment.

6. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.29677 of 2016 is also a person similarly placed like the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.3363 of 2018. After the cancellation of her appointment as Guest Lecturer in Malayalam, she was engaged on contract basis as Lecturer initially for the perio