AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J
This appeal is filed by the Mahatma Gandhi University aggrieved by the judgment dated 03-09-2018 in W.P (C) No.13265/2018 that directed the
University to pass appropriate orders counting the past service of Smt. Rincymol Mathew (petitioner in the writ petition), who was working as
Assistant Professor in School of Behavioural Sciences under the University, for the purposes of computing the benefits due to her in accordance with
the Career Advancement Scheme specified in the UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualification for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic
Staffs in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2010. The brief facts necessary for disposal
of this appeal are as follows:
Smt. Rincymol Mathew was initially appointed as a Lecturer in the School of Medical Education, a self-financing institution under the Mahatma
Gandhi University with effect from 03-10-1998. The said appointment was consequent to a selection process that was conducted pursuant to
administrative sanction accorded by the Vice-Chancellor of University to the request received from the Director, School of Medical Education. Her
probation in the post of Lecturer was thereafter declared on 03-10-1999 and she continued to work as Lecturer in the School of Medical Education till
05-02-2001. She was thereafter appointed as Assistant Professor in Nursing for the period between 06-02-2001 and 11-10-2004 as Associate
Professor in Nursing between 04-10-2004 and 11-04-2005. and as Professor in Nursing between 12-04-2005 and 20-01-2011. Thereafter with effect
from 21-01-2011, she was appointed as Assistant Professor in the School of Behavioural Sciences, which is a department of the Mahatma Gandhi
University duly recognized under the University Statutes.
The issue that arose in the writ petition was with regard to the entitlement of the petitioner to reckon her service in the School of Medical Education
between 03-10-1998 and 21-02-2011 for the purpose of the Career Advancement Scheme envisaged under the UGC Regulations referred above. The
relevant clause of the UGC Regulations reads as follows:
“10.1. Previous regular service, whether national or international, as Assistant Professor, Associate Professor or Professor or equivalent in a
University, College, National Laboratories or other scientific/professional Organizations such as the CSIR, ICAR, DRDO, UGC, ICSSR, ICHR,
ICMR, DBT, etc., should be counted for direct recruitment and promotion under CAS of a teacher as Assistant Professor, Associate Professor,
Professor or any other nomenclature these posts are described as per Appendix III-Table No.II provided that:
(a) The essential qualifications of the post held were not lower than the qualifications prescribed by the UGC for Assistant Professor, Associate
Professor and Professor as the case may be.
(b) The post is/was in an equivalent grade or of the pre-revised scale of pay as the post of Assistant Professor (Lecturer) Associate Professor
(Reader) and Professor.
(c) The candidate for direct recruitment has applied through proper channel only.
(d) The concerned Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and Professor should possess the same minimum qualifications as prescribed by the
UGC for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and Professor, as the case may be.
(e) The post was filled in accordance with the prescribed selection procedure as laid down in the Regulations of University/State Government/Central
Government/ Concerned Institutions, for such appointments.
(f) The previous appointment was not as guest lecturer for any duration, or an ad hoc or in a leave vacancy of less than one year duration. Ad hoc or
temporary service of more than one WP(C).No. 13265 of 2018 3 year duration can be counted provided that:
(i) the period of service was of more than one year duration;
(ii) the incumbent was appointed on the recommendation of duly constituted Selection Committee; and
(iii) the incumbent was selected to the permanent post in continuation to the ad hoc or temporary service, without any break.
(g) No distinction should be made with reference to the nature of management of the institution where previous service was rendered (private/local
body/Government), was considered for counting past services under this clause.â€
The petitioner's request for extension of the benefits of the Career Advancement Scheme to her was originally considered favourably by the
University and by order dated 06-12-2013 the Syndicate of the University decided to grant her the benefits of promotion, pay fixation etc by reckoning
her service in the School of Medical Education for the said purpose. Thereafter, by a separate order dated 17-02-2018 the Vice-Chancellor, by
exercising his powers under Section 10 (17) under Chapter III of Mahatma Gandhi University Act, 1985 accepted the recommendation of the
Syndicate Staff Sub Committee and revoked the earlier resolution of the Syndicate that had granted to Smt. Rincymol Mathew the benefits of the
Career Advancement Scheme. In the said order, the reason stated for revocation of the earlier Syndicate decision and the denial of the benefits of
Career Advancement Scheme to Smt. Rincymol Mathew is that her initial appointment as Lecturer in the School of Medical Education was not to a
post that was duly sanctioned in terms of the Mahatma Gandhi University Statutes.
The learned Single Judge who considered the challenge to the aforesaid order of the Vice-Chancellor found that as per clause 10.1 of the UGC
Regulations aforementioned, in the absence of any dispute by the University as regards Smt. Rincymol's qualification, the selection procedure that
resulted in her selection as Lecturer in the School of Medical Education, or her continuance in service in the said School, the mere fact that the post of
Lecturer in the School of Medical Education was not a post, to which the provisions of Chapter III of the Mahatma Gandhi University Statutes, 1997
applied, would not enable the University to deny the benefits of the CAS Scheme to Smt. Rincymol Mathew. Accordingly the writ petition was
allowed by quashing the order dated 17-03-2018 of the Vice-Chancellor and directing the University to count the past service of Smt. Rincymol
Mathew in the School of Medical Education in accordance with the UGC Regulations, and to disburse to her the benefits within a period of one month
from the date of receipt of the judgment.
Before us, it is the contention of Sri. Surin George Ipe, the learned Standing Counsel for the Mahatma Gandhi University that the learned Single
Judge ought to have found that the provisions of Chapter III of the Mahatma Gandhi University Statutes, 1997 clearly contemplated a selection
procedure in the manner delineated in Statutes 3 & 4 of Chapter III of the Mahatma Gandhi University Statutes, 1997. It is argued that in as much as
the said procedure was not followed while appointing Smt. Rincymol Mathew as a Lecturer in the School of Medical Education, the provisions of
Statute 10.1 (e) of Chapter III, were not satisfied in the instant case. It is his further contention that the condition that required the post in question to
be of an equivalent grade or of the pre-revised scale of pay as the post of Assistant Professor (Lecturer), Associate Professor (Reader) and
Professor had also not been satisfied in the said case. Per contra, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner Sri. G. Sreekumar would point out that
insofar as the School of Medical Education was not a Department/Institution to which the provisions of the Mahatma Gandhi University Statutes, 1997
stood attracted, the requirement as regards following a prescribed selection procedure had to be seen simply as referring to valid procedure authorised
by the statute that governs the functioning of the University. It is pointed out that the procedure prescribed for selection of the Lecturers to the School
of Medical Education was one that was prescribed pursuant to the powers conferred on the Syndicate under the Mahatma Gandhi University Statutes
and when so viewed the requirement of having filled the post through a valid selection procedure had to be seen complied in the case of Smt.
Rincymol Mathew. He would also refer to Ext.P16 representation that was submitted by Smt. Rincymol wherein the qualification possessed by the
said person is indicated and the same would would unambiguously reveal that she possessed the necessary qualifications specified in the University
notification dated 05-02-1997 (Annexure R1 (a)) that invited applications for the post of Lecturer in the School of Medical Education. The aforesaid
facts according to the learned counsel ought to be sufficient to establish the entitlement of Smt. Rincymol Mathew to the benefits of the CAS Scheme
in terms of the UGC Regulations aforementioned.
On a consideration of the rival submissions, we are of the view that in as much as that there is no dispute with regard to the qualification possessed
by Smt. Rincymol Mathew or with regard to the fact that she was duly selected pursuant to a selection procedure that was authorised by the Vice-
Chancellor, to a post that was created by the Director, School of Medical Education in exercise of the powers conferred on him by the Mahatma
Gandhi University Statutes, 1997, the mere fact that the said selection procedure differed from the procedure contemplated in Statutes 3 & 4 under
Chapter III of the Mahatma Gandhi University Statutes, 1997, cannot be a reason for denying the benefits of the CAS to Smt. Rincymol Mathew.
Clause 10.1 of the UGC Regulations extracted above does not expressly require so. We are therefore in complete agreement with the findings of the
learned Single Judge in the judgment impugned in the writ appeal, and see no reason to interfere with the same in any manner. We might only add that
a Division Bench of this court in its judgment dated 10-07-2019 in WA No.678/2018 has taken a similar view, and the said judgment has since attained
finality consequent to the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition filed by the State Government against the said judgment.
The writ appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. The appellant University shall pass consequential orders as directed by the learned Single Judge
within an outer time limit of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.