The court reaffirmed that permanent employment status established by earlier Supreme Court rulings is critical in adjudicating claims of similar rights.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 5 th day of July , 202 2 .

Though the individual reliefs sought for in these writ petitions may be different, in its nuances, and ambit, the essential legal questions are common. I, therefore propose to dispose them of through this judgment.

2. The petitioners in these cases seek various reliefs against the Mahatma Gandhi University (“M.G.University” for short) on the assertion that the same have been afforded to various other persons by it, who were similarly, if not identically, situated; and thus arguing that they have been hostilely discriminated in having been denied the same.

3. Sri.V.Varghese – learned counsel for the petitioners in four of the afore cases and Sri.C.V.Alexander – learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P(C).No.28869 of 2016, argued that the issues impelled in this case are no longer res integra, it having been declared afÏrmatively in favour of their clients by a learned Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 2394 of 2018 and connected matters. They further asserted that this judgment has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No. 6378 of 2020 and connected matters and that they have been declared “to be permanent employees of the University, having the status of teachers of self financing Institution, which has the status of an unaided afÏliated college, manage by the University”. They assert that all their claims are now liable to be acceded to by the University; and pray that these writ petitions be allowed.

4. Sri.Surin George Ipe – learned Standing Counsel for the University, submitted that the declaration, regarding the status of the petitioners by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as being analogous to a teacher of an unaided afÏliated college manged by the University, is very important and that therefore, their claims will have to be regulated by such and no other. He argued that, therefore, most, if not all the claims, made by them in these writ petitions are undeserving to them and thus prayed that these writ petitions be dismissed.

5. Even when I hear the learned Standing Counsel for the University on the afore lines, the fact remains that on Hon’ble Supreme Court issuing orders in the aforementioned SLP, the position of the petitioners herein indubitably construe to that of permanent employees of the University in an unaided afÏliated college managed by it. Every word in this declaration is important and acme, since it would modulate the manner in which the relief sought for by the petitioners will have to be dealt with and granted, if so found eligible.

6. I am, therefore of the firm view that, at the first instance, it would not be justified or prudent for this Court to enter into the merits of the various claims of the petitioners, since the University will have to certainly deal with it, resulting in appropriate orders adverting to specific holdings of the learned Division Bench of this Court, which have been afÏrmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. This certainly should be done, after hearing the petitioners also and taking note of their contentions that similarly placed persons were also granted benefits, as has been sought for by them in the past.

In the afore circumstances, I order these writ petitions with a direction to the competent Authority of the University to consider the individual claims made by the petitioners, as impelled in these matters; which shall be done after affording them an opportunity of being heard, thus culminating in appropriate orders and necessary action thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

I make it clear that though this Court has not entered into the merits of each of the claims of the petitioners, they are all liable to be considered carefully and distinctly by the University through the afore process, keeping in mind the unmistakable tenor of the directions of the learned Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 2394 of 2018 and connected matte