The court affirmed that Librarians are not exempt from UGC qualification requirements for pay revisions, emphasizing adherence to prior judgments.

JUDGMENT

D. K. Singh, J.

W.P.(C) Nos. 1534 of 2021 & 13514 of 2021 

1. The petitioner who stood retired as Librarian Gr. I on 31.03.2010 seeking revision of his pay as per the pay prescribed to the Lecturers having the University Grants Commission (UGC) qualifications. The petitioner has indulged in several litigations. The brief facts of the case are stated as under;

a) The petitioner was initially appointed as Librarian Gr. IV at St. Gregorious College, Kottarakkara, Kollam district, an aided College affiliated to the University of Kerala on 24.09.1987. As per the averments in the writ petition, petitioner was promoted as Librarian Gr. I w.e.f. 01.05.1992.

b) The petitioner’s promotion as Librarian Gr. I was approved by the Director of Collegiate Education, Thiruvananthapuram vide the order dated 03.10.1992.

c) The UGC formulated a Scheme regarding the qualifications of teachers/lecturers in the University and Colleges and their pay scale etc. The State Government issued Government Order dated 21.12.1999 implementing the UGC scheme in the State Universities and Colleges affiliated to them in respect of the teachers at the Universities and Colleges. The UGC scale was also made applicable to the Physical Education Teachers and Librarians in the Universities and Colleges in the State Government.

2. The petitioner claims that the Government of Kerala vide the Government Order dated 16.11.1994 had exempted teachers appointed prior to 13.03.1990 but before 14.05.1992 i.e. the date when the UGC scale was made applicable, there was no requirement for such teachers to have NET qualification as prescribed by the 1992 Scheme of the UGC.

3. The petitioner claims that as the petitioner was appointed as Librarian Gr. I which would be the Lecturer grade w.e.f. 01.05.1992, he should be given the benefit of UGC Scheme without him having the NET qualifications. Prima facie, this submission also does not appear to be correct inasmuch as the petitioner’s promotion as Librarian Gr. I was approved only w.e.f. 03.10.1992 and the exemption from NET qualification was made applicable to the persons appointed after 13.03.1990 but before 14.05.1992. Even otherwise, Exhibit P-4 Government Order dated 16.11.1994 in W.P.(C) No. 18490 of 2024 (in W.P.(C) No. 18490 of 2024) was in respect of the teachers of the University and the affiliated/constituted Colleges and not in respect of the Librarian and other staffs of the Universities and affiliated Colleges. When the Government declined the request of the petitioner, he filed W.P.(C) No. 10029 of 2010 questioning the order dated 06.11.2009 whereby the petitioner’s request to grant him UGC pay scale was rejected. This Court vide the Judgment dated 11.04.2011 observed that it was for the Government to consider the representation claiming the benefit of the order whereby the Government decided the higher grade of pay to the Librarian and also that the petitioner may place the materials showing that he is entitled for exemption from the UGC qualification.

4. In pursuance to the said liberty granted by this Court vide the Judgment dated 11.04.2011 passed in W.P.(C) No. 10029 of 2010 preferred by the petitioner, the petitioner filed a representation before the Government. However, the said representation came to be rejected by the Government vide the order dated 17.12.2012. It was stated that the Government Order dated 16.11.1994 was applicable to the Lecturers only and was not applicable to the petitioner and the petitioner cannot claim the benefit of the said Government Order.

5. Aggrieved by the said decision of the Government dated 17.12.2012, the petitioner again approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 1598 of 2013 and prayed for setting aside the Government Order dated 17.12.2012 and a writ of mandamus directing the Government to provide the UGC scheme of pay to the petitioner w.e.f. 17.09.2004.

6. This Court, vide the Judgment dated 09.02.2017 disposed of the said Government Order. This Court held that the petitio