IMPORTANT POINT
Judgments must be interpreted contextually, and observations in prior cases do not establish binding precedents applicable to all future cases.

JUDGMENT :

Nitin Jamdar, C. J.

By order dated 10 October 2024, the Division Bench opined that the matter be placed before the Chief Justice for referring to the Full Bench to answer the questions framed. Accordingly, this Original Petition is placed before us.

2. The Division Bench framed two questions for consideration by the Full Bench. Firstly, whether the Rules framed under Part I of the Kerala Service Rules (KSR) contemplate covering provisions beyond the legislative fields available to the State. Secondly, whether the executive order issued by the Government implementing the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) scheme can be considered contrary to the State covering the field of subject earmarked for the State.

3. Before addressing these questions, it is necessary to outline a few relevant facts. The Respondent, holding a postgraduate degree, has been employed as a Lecturer in Medico Sociology since 3 November 1997. The Government of Kerala, through Exhibit-P1 order dated 16 June 2000 in G.O.(P) No.145/2000/H&FWD, revised the pay scales and allowances of teachers in Medical, Dental, and Pharmaceutical Science colleges. The order also provided for career advancement after five years of service as a Lecturer. Consequently, the Respondent was entitled to promotion as Assistant Professor on 3 November 2002 and as Associate Professor on 3 November 2007. However, the Petitioners interpreted Exhibit-P1 order as confining these benefits to teachers of medical subjects and excluding those teaching non-medical subjects. Based on this interpretation, the Petitioners stopped the benefits and ordered the recovery of amounts already disbursed. Aggrieved, the Respondent filed W.P.(C) No.6563/2004, challenging the pay slip issued by the Accountant General, which withdrew benefits for teachers of non- medical subjects and directed recovery of payments already made. By judgment dated 16 June 2009, the learned Single Judge quashed the pay slip issued by Petitioner No. 2, which was based on the previous pay scale. Regarding career advancement, the Court held that the Respondent was free to pursue her grievance by making a representation to the Director of Medical Education. In compliance with this judgment, Petitioner No. 1 – Secretary to the Government, Health and Family Welfare/Education Department – issued Exhibit-P3 Government Order dated 17 September 2010. The order reiterated that time-bound promotion was to be granted after five years. However, it clarified that five years of teaching experience (physical) would not include periods of eligible leave, such as earned leave, under the KSR. The Respondent challenged this order before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal. The core issue before the Tribunal was whether, in calculating the five-year period for career advancement, the time spent on duty and leave should be considered. The Respondent contended that having been in the grade of Senior Teacher since 3 November 1997, she was eligible for career advancement from 3 November 2002, including the leave taken. The Petitioner – State, on the other hand, maintained that the five – year period, excluding the leave of the Respondent, was completed only on 12 September 2009. Hence, according to the State, the order granting career advancement from 2009 was correct. The Tribunal, following the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Kerala, Rep. by the Health Secretary and Others v. M.G.Presanna , Judgment in W.A. No. 1021/2010 dated 21 February 2011 , which is with reference to the Government order dated 16 June 2000, held that the period of leave cannot be excluded while calculating the five years of service for granting the benefit of career advancement to the Respondent. The Tribunal allowed the application by order dated 14 July 2017.

4. The State, aggrieved by the said order, filed the present Original Petition. When the matter came before the Division Bench, it took note of the decision in M.G.