Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1171 (KER)

Ligimol James v. State of Kerala

2025-05-13

N.NAGARESH

body2025
JUDGMENT : N.NAGARESH, J. The petitioners are working as Assistant Professors under the Kerala Veterinary and Animal Science University. The writ petition has been filed to quash Exts.P10 and P12 to P14 to the extent the University has decided not to reckon the prior service of the petitioners as qualifying service for the purpose of promotion/placement under the Career Advancement Scheme. The petitioners have also sought certain other incidental reliefs. 2. The petitioners state that they were inducted into service as Academic Consultants (on deputation basis) from the State Government service in the year 2011. They were appointed as Assistant Professors on regular basis on 07.03.2015. The petitioners state that in the year 2013, another batch of temporary Teachers were appointed as Assistant Professors. They were also doing the same job and taking the same salary. 3. As per Ext.P1 UGC Regulations, the prior service of the petitioners as Academic Consultants is eligible to be counted along with their regular service as Assistant Professors for the purpose of promotion under the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS). However, as per Ext.P10, the University decided to deny the benefit of counting prior service, to the petitioners. 4. The petitioners would submit that other similarly situated Assistant Professors approached this Court and their request was granted by this Court as per Ext.P11 judgment. The University thereafter issued Exts.P12 to P14 stating that the Selection Committee has selected the petitioners as Academic Consultants which was not in accordance with the UGC Norms. Hence, the University sought Government's advice. The Government has no role to decide the issue, contend the petitioners. 5. The petitioners state that University is the ultimate authority in the matter of appointment and service conditions of Teachers. They are to be governed by the University Act and the Statutes. To the extent they are not inconsistent with UGC Regulations, the UGC Regulations will govern grant of CAS promotion. Ext.P21 is without jurisdiction. Ext.P10 decision to the extent is against the petitioners is vitiated by hostile discrimination. Exts.P10, P12 and P14 are violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India, contended the petitioners. 6. Respondents 4 and 5 filed and counter affidavit. Respondents 4 and 5 submitted that the University invited applications to the post of Academic Consultants. The petitioners came on deputation as Academic Consultants from various Government Departments. Exts.P10, P12 and P14 are violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India, contended the petitioners. 6. Respondents 4 and 5 filed and counter affidavit. Respondents 4 and 5 submitted that the University invited applications to the post of Academic Consultants. The petitioners came on deputation as Academic Consultants from various Government Departments. The petitioners were given provisional appointment as Assistant Professors as per Exts.P5 to P7. The petitioners sought absorption as Assistant Professors. Their claim for absorption was rejected in judgment in W.P.(C) No.15580/2014 which decision was upheld in W.A. No.108/2019. 7. The petitioners sought to count their past service as Academic Consultants to be counted for promotion under the CAS. The Committee constituted by the University for selection to the post of Academic Consultants and Selection Committee formed for selection of Assistant Professors are different. The University has therefore sought clarification from the Government in the matter of counting of past service of the petitioners. 8. The 2 nd respondent-Secretary to Government filed an affidavit stating that the Higher Education Department has no role or control over the Kerala Veterinary and Animal Science University. The University has not sought any advice in this regard. 9. The additional 6 th respondent-Secretary to Animal Husbandry Department filed a counter affidavit. The additional 6 th respondent stated that the appointment of petitioners as Academic Consultants does not satisfy the criteria prescribed by UGC norms. In the selection of Academic Consultants, candidates who did not possess qualification for appointment as Teachers as per UGC norms, were also included. The 6 th respondent asserted that as per the UGC Regulations, 2010, the petitioners are not entitled to reckon their prior service as Academic Consultants for promotion under CAS. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Senior Government Pleader representing respondents 1 to 3 and 6 and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 4 and 5. 11. The petitioners were appointed as Academic Consultants in the year 2011. Subsequently, they were appointed as Assistant Professors on a temporary basis as per Exts.P5 to P7. It is discernible from the pleadings that the claim of the petitioners for absorption to the post of Assistant Professor was rejected by judgment dated 12.12.2018 in W.P.(C) No.15580/2014. The said decision was upheld by judgment dated 20.05.2020 in W.A. No.108/2019. 12. Subsequently, they were appointed as Assistant Professors on a temporary basis as per Exts.P5 to P7. It is discernible from the pleadings that the claim of the petitioners for absorption to the post of Assistant Professor was rejected by judgment dated 12.12.2018 in W.P.(C) No.15580/2014. The said decision was upheld by judgment dated 20.05.2020 in W.A. No.108/2019. 12. The selection of Academic Consultants was made by a Committee comprising of : (a) Hon'ble Vice Chancellor (b) Registrar (c) Director of Academics and Research (DAR) (d) Dean of the faculty. (e) Head of the University Department (f) External expert. When the petitioners were so appointed on deputation, they were given salary attached to their post in the parent Department. UGC pay scale applicable to Assistant Professors were not extended to them. 13. As per UGC Regulations, the Selection Committee for the post of Assistant Professor in the University shall have the following composition: (a) The Vice Chancellor shall be the Chairperson of the Selection Committee. (b) Three experts in the concerned subjects nominated by the Vice Chancellor out of the panel of names approved by the relevant statutory body of the University concerned. (c) Dean of the concerned faculty, whereever applicable. (d) Head / Chairperson of the Department/School. (e) An Academician nominated by the Visitor / Chancellor, wherever applicable. (f) An Academician representing SC/ST/OBC/Minority/Women/Differently-abled categories to be nominated by the Vice Chancellor or Acting Vice Chancellor, if any of the candidates representing these categories is the applicant and if any of the above members of the Selection Committee do not belong to that category. The composition of the Committee for Selection of Academic Consultants and the composition of Selection Committee for the post of Assistant Professor would indeed indicate that those posts are distinct and different. 14. The University has considered the fact the petitioners were fully qualified in all respects for appointment as Assistant Professors. However, the appointment of petitioners as Academic Consultants does not satisfy the criteria for selection and appointments as prescribed by the UGC norms. In the afore circumstances, I do not find any illegality or arbitrariness in Exts.P10 and P12 to P14 orders. The writ petition is therefore without any merit and hence dismissed.