The court established that the petitioners, appointed under UGC XII Plan, are entitled to regularization of their services despite allegations of irregularities, as their appointments were sanctioned and funded by UGC.

COMMON ORDER

These writ petitions have been filed challenging the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 10.05.2024 and for a consequential direction to the 2nd respondent to regularize the services of the petitioner from the date of their initial appointment in the post of Assistant Professors under UGC XII Plan.

2.The case of the petitioners is that under UGC XII plan guidelines, UGC has provided assistance for the teaching staff posts created under the Plan for a period of 5 years up to 31.03.2017. This funding by the UGC is towards the salary to the posts created under the Plan. The further case of the petitioners is that as per the guidelines of UGC, it is a condition precedent that for the release of the UGC assistance against any post approved by UGC, an undertaking must be given by the University in respect of maintenance of those posts after the expiry of the XII Plan period.

3.The syndicate of the Bharathiar University in the meeting held on 28.04.2016, decided to recruit Assistant Professors under the UGC XII Plan. It was resolved to approve filling up of 14 Assistant Professors in the University Departments under the XII Plan. The petitioners were appointed as Assistant Professors after fulfilling all the eligibility criteria.

4.The respondent University also fixed the scale of pay of the petitioners and they were being paid as per the scale of pay.

5.The grievance of the petitioners is that after the end of the Plan period, i.e., on 31.03.2017, the University failed to regularize / absorb the petitioners in the post of Assistant Professors. The petitioners made representations in this regard. Since, the same was not considered, writ petitions were filed before this Court.

6.This Court considering the relief sought for, passed an order on 07.09.2022 dismissing the writ petitions on the ground that the petitioners were contract employees and therefore, they are not entitled for regularization or permanent absorption.

7.Aggrieved by the above order, writ appeals were filed in W.A.Nos.499, etc., of 2023. The writ appeals were disposed of by judgment dated 23.06.2023 in the following terms:

“7.After some arguments, the learned senior counsel for the appellants has submitted that the appellants are confining the prayer to the limited extent of considering their representation(s) meeting out all the legal requirements by the authorities, for which the learned Government Counsel as well as the learned counsel for the University have submitted that they have no serious objections in passing appropriate orders on the representation(s) of the appellants.

8.In view of the limited relief now sought on the side of the appellants, which has not been opposed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, the appellants are directed to submit their representation(s), if not submitter earlier, to the respondents within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Thereafter, the respondents are directed to consider the same on merits meeting out all the legal requirements and pass appropriate orders, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the appellants, within a period of eight weeks.”

8.Pursuant to the above judgment, the petitioners made representations before the University requesting to regularize their services in the post of Assistant Professors. Since, the same was not considered, contempt petitions were also filed. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent through impugned proceedings dated 10.05.2024, rejected the claim made by the petitioners and refused to regularize them in the post of Assistant Professors. Aggrieved by the same, these writ petitions have been filed before this Court.

9.The 2nd respondent has filed a common counter affidavit. The University has taken a stand that all the writ petitioners were recruited only on contract basis and their initial appointment was not made in the regular post of Assistant Professors in the University. The appointments of the petitioners was done onl