University Of Kerala v. Grisha Anand
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE TUESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2015/5TH KARTHIKA, 1937 RP.No. 468 of 2015 (W) --------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 3589/2014 DATED 09-03-2015 ---------------- REVIEW PETITIONER/2ND RESPONDENT :
-------------------------------------------------------------- UNIVERSITY OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR THIRUVANANTHAPURAM UNIVERSITY CAMPUS.
BY ADV. SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1, 3 & 4 : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. GRISHA ANAND ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH MILAD-E-SHERIEF COLLEGE, KAYAMKULAM RESIDING AT 'ANANDA BHAVAN', ALUMPEEDIKA P.O., OACHIRA, KOLLAM- 695 502.
2. PRINCIPAL MILAD-E-SHERIEF MEMORIAL COLLEGE, KAYAMKULAM - 690502.
3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION KOLLAM - 691 001.
4. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.MUHAMMED HANEEFF R3 & R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BIJU MEENATTOOR THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27-10-2015, ALONG WITH RP NO. 469/2015 & RP NO. 470/2015,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Mn ...2/-
RP.No. 468 of 2015 (W) APPENDIX PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES :
ANNEXURE A1 : COPY OF THE LETTER NO. 28409/D1/2013/H.EDN DATED 12.9.2013 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE REVIEW PETITIONER.
ANNEXURE A2 COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE U.G.C.
GUIDELINES ON (MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS FOR APPOINTMENT OF TEACHERS AND OTHER ACADEMIC STAFF AND UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES AND MEASURES FOR MAINTENANCE OF STANDARDS IN HIGHER EDUCATION) 2010. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES : NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Mn
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.
================== ================== Dated this the 27th day of October, 2015
J U D G M E N T
The University has come up with the review pointing out the impact of Chapter XIII of the Kerala University First Ordinance. 2.
The issue pertains to assessment of work load in the affiliated colleges.
3.
This Court in the judgment found that the subsequent amendment to the University Regulation cannot have a bearing in the matter, as appointment has been made prior to the amendment.
4.
The University's case is that the 'First Ordinance' clearly stipulates that the total number of posts permissible shall be according to the workload and staff pattern under the UGC guidelines. The particular reference has been made with respect to Chapter XIII.
'Note' to Chapter XIII clause 3 of Kerala University First Ordinance provides that the work load of those who do not
- : 2 :- come under the UGC scheme or are not eligible for UGC scale of pay shall also be in accordance with UGC guidelines. Admittedly, the University implemented UGC scale of pay only with effect from 26.10.2013. The staff pattern in the college was based on the work load in Ext. P5 in W.P.C No.10227 of 2014.
5.
The learned counsel for the writ petitioner would submit that 'Note' as above would have an impact only when the UGC guidelines are implemented in the University and therefore any reference to the UGC guidelines may not have bearing in this matter unless the guidelines have been adopted and implemented by the University based on necessary amendment. On the other hand the learned Standing Counsel would submit that the ordinance would come into effect when UGC formulated the guidelines and this has to be read into the provisions of the university regulations by incorporation by reference. Therefore, it has statutory character and UGC guidelines has to be followed in reckoning work load in a particular teaching post.
6.
It is to be noted that this Court has power of review only on limited ground. This Court already held that the subsequent amendment of the regulation cannot come to the aid of the
- : 3 :- university to say that UGC guidelines has to be followed reckoning the work load. Though there is no reference as to the impact of the first ordinance in the judgment, nevertheless this Court has taken a view that the subsequent amendment regulation would not have an impact. In that view of the matter, there is no scope for review as the judgment do not suffer from any error apparent on face of the record. In that view of the matter review petitions are dismissed. No costs.
sd/- sab A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE