Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1159 (KER)

Manu v. Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit

2025-05-13

N.NAGARESH

body2025
JUDGMENT : N.NAGARESH, J. The petitioner, who is working as Professor and Head of the Department (Hindi), Central University of Kerala, Kasaragod, seeks to set aside Exts.P2, P4 and P12 and to direct respondents 1 and 2 to modify Ext.P7 order by giving placement to the petitioner as Professor with effect from 01.06.2009. 2. The petitioner states that prior to the year 1999, the petitioner had ten years and six months of service in the Mahatma Gandhi University. The petitioner joined the 1 st respondent-Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit on 14.07.1999. On 01.11.2022, the petitioner joined the 4 th respondent-Central University of Kerala. 3. The petitioner requested the 1 st respondent- University to count his past service for service benefits. Considering his past service, the 1 st respondent found that the petitioner is eligible to the post of Selection Grade Lecturer with effect from 22.12.2000. The petitioner was placed as Selection Grade Lecturer with effect from 14.07.2000 granting notional selection post with effect from 22.12.1999. The petitioner was informed that he cannot be placed as Professor as he has not secured requisite score. The petitioner was, however, placed as Associate Professor with effect from 01.01.2006. Later, the petitioner was placed as Professor with effect from 12.11.2017. 4. The petitioner submitted Ext.P11 representation to the 2 nd respondent requesting to treat his application dated 12.11.2017 for placement as Professor as per the 5 th UGC Scheme and to revise the placement as Professor with effect from 23.12.2007. The application was rejected as per Ext.P12 communication. The petitioner submitted a fresh representation to the 2 nd respondent as per Ext.P13. The respondents have not passed any favourable orders. 5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner applied for counting his past service as provided in Clause 7.1 of Government Order dated 21.12.1999. The application was considered by the University after a lapse of more than 10 years. Thereafter, the salary fixation order was issued on 12.01.2012. The petitioner was granted notional Selection Grade post with effect from 22.12.1999. The petitioner’s further career advancement should be considered from 22.12.1999. The petitioner was not granted Selection Grade. 6. Government Order dated 27.03.2010 adopted the 5 th UGC Scheme including revision of pay scale. The adoption took place with effect from 01.01.2006. The petitioner fulfilled the conditions stipulated in Clause 6.1.1 of the Government Order. The petitioner’s further career advancement should be considered from 22.12.1999. The petitioner was not granted Selection Grade. 6. Government Order dated 27.03.2010 adopted the 5 th UGC Scheme including revision of pay scale. The adoption took place with effect from 01.01.2006. The petitioner fulfilled the conditions stipulated in Clause 6.1.1 of the Government Order. His request for placement with effect from 01.06.2009 was declined by the University as per Ext.P4. The petitioner is a victim of prejudice perpetuated by the authorities, contended the counsel for the petitioner. 7. The 1 st respondent resisted the writ petition. The 1 st respondent stated that the University implemented UGC 5 th Regulation as per order dated 11.11.2011. All the applications received for promotion under CAS were disposed of by the University. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Professor with effect from 12.11.2017. The PBAS submitted by the petitioner in 2012 was scrutinised by the Statutory Screening Committee on 10.10.2012. It was found that the petitioner does not have sufficient API scores. Therefore, he was not recommended for promotion to the post of Professor. The petitioner was informed of the same as per Ext.R1(d) communication dated 26.11.2012. The petitioner did not challenge the same within a reasonable time. The writ petition is therefore without any merit and it is liable to be dismissed, contends the Standing Counsel. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, respective learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 4 and 6 and the learned Government Pleader representing the 5 th respondent. 9. The petitioner was appointed in the 1 st respondent-University as Lecturer on 14.07.1999. Taking note of his prior service of 10 years and six months under the Mahatma Gandhi University, the petitioner was placed as Senior Grade Lecturer with effect from 22.12.1999. As the petitioner’s publications were not in the approved journals, the petitioner was not eligible to be placed in the cadre of Reader. Therefore, the petitioner was placed as Selection Grade Lecturer as per the existing 5 th UGC Scheme. 10. The contention of the petitioner is that at the relevant point of time, there was no list of journals, which are considered as approved. Therefore, his publications will have to be accepted. The fact that there was no list of journals will not entitle the petitioner for CAS promotion on the basis of his publications. 11. 10. The contention of the petitioner is that at the relevant point of time, there was no list of journals, which are considered as approved. Therefore, his publications will have to be accepted. The fact that there was no list of journals will not entitle the petitioner for CAS promotion on the basis of his publications. 11. By Government Order dated 27.03.2010, the Government had declared that there shall be only three designations of Teachers, namely, Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and Professor. As per Clause 6.1.11 of the said Government Order, those who completed three years in the post of Selection Grade Lecturer has to be designated as Associate Professor. Therefore, the petitioner was re- designated as Associate Professor with effect from 01.01.2006. For placement as Professor, a candidate should submit SAR for a period of five years and five research publications prior to the date of eligibility for placement. The publications of the petitioner were not recognised or published in credible journals. Therefore, I do not find any illegality in the action of respondents 1 to 3. 12. The petitioner did not submit the SAR to the post of Professor either on 23.12.2007 or on 01.01.2009. Even though the petitioner had completed the required period of service in the post of Associate Professor to become Professor as on 01.01.2009, the petitioner failed to submit the PBS and records of achievements as required by UGC 5 th Regulation. On scrutiny of PBAS submitted by the petitioner in 2012, it was found that the petitioner is not having sufficient API score in the category III (Research and Publication). Therefore, he was not recommended for promotion to the post of Professor. Later, the petitioner submitted PBAS on 11.11.2017. Thereafter, considering the recommendations of the Selection Committee and the Screening Committee, the petitioner was placed in the post of Professor. 13. Thus, non-promotion of the petitioner as Professor with effect from 01.06.2009 was due for the reason that the petitioner did not satisfy the conditions for placement as Professor as per the UGC Regulations . Therefore, I do not find any merit in the writ petition The writ petition is therefore dismissed.