Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J
MADHAVAN.S – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C)/28494/2008
Service - Lecturer's Placement - UGC Scheme - Reconsideration of Previous Service - Broken Periods
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Lecturer, contested the non-recognition of his prior private college service for placement in Senior Scale under UGC guidelines, despite his claims of entitlements based on existing communications and comparisons with similarly situated colleagues.
Finding of the Court:
The court examined whether the prior service, even if not exceeding one year, could be considered. It emphasized the importance of consistent application of UGC standards and outcome from prior judgments stating broken service periods can count.
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to have his private college service considered for placement in the Senior Scale under the UGC Scheme despite it being less than one year.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the duration of service in broken periods can be included for placement benefits under UGC, leading to a necessity to reevaluate the petitioner's past placements.
Final Decision: The court quashed the impugned orders and mandated reconsideration of the petitioner's service claims.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, a Lecturer in Zoology (Selection Grade), is aggrieved by Exts.P13, P16, P17 and P18 orders and he further seeks for a direction to the second respondent to count private college service rendered by him in Christ College from 2.8.1979 to 20.7.1980, for the purpose of placement in Senior Scale/Selection Grade.
2. The petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Lecturer in Zoology in Christ College, Irinjalakuda on 2.8.1979, which was against a leave vacancy of not less than one year from 18.7.1979 to 17.7.1980. The said appointment was approved by the Calicut University, going by Ext.P1 communication. Ext.P2 is the sanction accorded by the Directorate of Collegiate Education, in the matter.
3. While working in Christ College, he was advised by the Public Service Commission for appointment as Junior Lecturer in Collegiate Education Service and was appointed as per Ext.P3 order dated 14.7.1980. He joined service in the Collegiate Education Service on 21.7.1980. The wpc 28494/2008 2 petitioner is entitled for the benefit of UGC scheme, viz. for placement as Lecturer Senior Scale with effect from 2.8.1987 by counting his aided college service also. But he was placed in the said scale only with effect from 1.4.1989. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed Ext.P6 representation and he claimed the benefit of Ext.P7 circular also as per Ext.P8. Ext.P9 is a further representation filed by him seeking to place him in the senior scale with effect from 2.8.1987.
4. In the meanwhile, the petitioner was placed in the selection grade with effect from 1.4.1996 after acquisition of M.Phil in December 1994. It is complained that therein also his private college service has not been reckoned and the anomaly was pointed out in his earlier representations were not rectified also. This resulted in submitting Ext.P11 representation. The Principal of the College also communicated a letter as per Ext.P12. Ext.P11 was rejected by the second respondent as per Ext.P13. The view taken is that the previous service to be reckoned for placement under the UGC Scheme should not be less than one year duration and since the petitioner is having previous service of 9 months and 23 days, the said service cannot be considered for placement. Again, he filed Ext.P15 representation before the third respondent to reexamine the same. He was given a reply by Ext.P16 in response to an application filed under the Right wpc 28494/2008 3 to Information Act. Ext.P17 communication of the Government was also enclosed along with Ext.P16. Ext.P18 is a further communication sent to the petitioner by the second respondent relying upon Ext.P17, rejected the claim of the petitioner. The petitioner has got a case that in respect of other similarly placed lecturers, going by Exts.P19 and P20, similar benefits were granted.
5. The petitioner has produced along with the reply affidavit the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.17103/2003 as Ext.P22, wherein it was held that even broken period of service can be reckoned for placement in senior grade/selection grade.
6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Govt.
Pleader.
7. It is mainly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that what is relevant is the duration of the vacancy which is beyond one year. Reliance is also placed on the decision of this Court inUnni Narayanan v. State of Kerala ( 2009 (2) KLT 604 ) in this regard. It is submitted that at any rate, the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of Ext.P22 judgment.
8. In the light of the above, the matter will be reconsidered by the wpc 28494/2008 4 Government and to enable the Government to do so, the impugned orders Exts.P13, P16, P17 and P18 are quashed. The issue will be reconsidered after considering the effect of Ext.P22 judgment and the judgment in Unni Narayanan’s case ( 2009 (2) KLT 604 ). Appropriate orders shall be passed by the competent authority among the respondents within a period of two months
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
