THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY AND ORS. versus RINCYMOL MATHEW on 10 November 2022

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentand order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala atErnakulam in Writ Appeal No. 1355 of 2019 by which the Division BenchBof the High Court has dismissed the said writ appeal preferred by theappellant and has confirmed the judgment and order passed by the learnedSingle Judge passed in Writ Petition No. 13265 of 2018 directing theappellant University to pass appropriate orders counting the past serviceof the respondent, who was working as Assistant Professor in the SchoolCof Behavioural Sciences under the University, for the purposes ofcomputing the benefits due to her in accordance with the CareerAdvancement Scheme (hereinafter referred to as “CAS”) under theUGC Regulations, the University has preferred the present appeal.

2. The respondent herein was initially appointed as a Lecturer inDthe School of Medical Education, a self-financing institution under theappellant University w.e.f. 03.10.1998. The said appointment wasconsequent to a selection process that was conducted pursuant toadministrative sanction accorded by the Vice-Chancellor of the Universityafter obtaining necessary approval from the Director, School of MedicalEducation. Initially, she was appointed on probation. Her probation inEthe post of Lecturer was thereafter declared on 03.10.1999 and shecontinued to work as Lecturer till 05.02.2001. That thereafter she wasappointed as Assistant Professor in Nursing for the period between06.02.2001 and 11.10.2004 as Associate Professor in Nursing between04.10.2004 and 11.04.2005 and as Professor in Nursing betweenF12.04.2005 and 20.01.2011. That thereafter w.e.f. 21.01.2011, she wasappointed as Assistant Professor in the School of Behavioural Sciences,department of the Mahatma Gandhi University.

2.1 The dispute arose with regard to the entitlement of therespondent to reckon her service in the School of Medical Education forGthe period between 03.10.1998 to 21.02.2011 for the purpose of theCAS envisaged under the UGC Regulations. Her request for extensionof benefit of CAS was considered favourably by the University and byorder dated 06.12.2013, the Syndicate of the University decided to granther the benefits of promotion, pay fixation etc. by reckoning her servicein the School of Medical Education for the said purpose. That thereafter,H

the Vice-Chancellor, in exercise of his powers under Section 10(17)under Chapter III of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act, 1985 acceptedthe recommendation of the Syndicate Staff Sub-Committee and revokedthe earlier resolution of the Syndicate that had granted the respondentthe benefits of the CAS. The reason stated for revocation of the earlierSyndicate decision and the denial of the benefits of CAS to the respondentwas that her initial appointment as Lecturer in the School of MedicalEducation was not to a post that was duly sanctioned in terms of theMahatma Gandhi University Statutes.

2.2 The denial/revocation of the earlier Syndicate decision andthe denial of the benefit of CAS were the subject matter of writ petitionbefore the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge allowed thewrit petition by observing that the appointment of the respondent asLecturer was after following selection procedure and that she was dulyqualified. The learned Single Judge therefore directed to count the pastservices of the respondent in the School of Medical Education inaccordance with the UGC Regulations and to grant the benefit of CAS.The appeal preferred by the appellant before the Division Bench of theHigh Court has been dismissed by the impugned judgment and order.Hence the University has preferred the present appeal.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant Universityhas taken us to Regulation 10.1 of the UGC Regulations. It is submittedthat as per Regulation 10.1, only previous regular service as AssistantProfessor, Associate Professor should be counted for direct recruitmentand promotion under CAS. Therefore, it is submitted that as initially, theappointment of the respondent as a Lecturer was on temporary post andwas not made after following due procedure as required under theMahatma Gandhi University Statutes, 1997, respondent shall not beentitled to past services rendered for CAS benefits.

4. While opposing the present appeal, Shri Gaurav Agrawal,learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has taken us tothe appointment orders appointing the respondent initially as a Lecturerand thereafter as Assistant Professor and thereafter as AssociateProfessor. It is submitted that the initial appointment of the respondent –original writ petitioner was after following due procedure and on probationand her probation came to be confirmed subsequently thereafter by orderdated 21.10.2000. It is submitted that thereafter by order dated 03.02.2001on the approval of the Director, School of Medical Education, respondent AB

C

D

EF

G

H

A– original writ petitioner was appointed as Assistant Professor w.e.f.06.02.2001 in the regular pay-scale. It is submitted that thereafter herprobation as Assistant Professor was confirmed. It is submitted thatthereafter by order dated 12.10.2004, she was promoted to the post ofAssociate professor in the regular pay-scale of Rs. 14300-450-19250.It is submitted that in that view of the matter neither the learned SingleBJudge nor the Division Bench have committed any error in directing theUniversity to count the period during which the respondent worked asLecturer/Assistant Professor/Associate Professor for the purpose ofgranting the benefit under the CAS.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective partiesCat length.

6. We have considered the initial appointment order of therespondent as Lecturer. Applications were invited from qualifiedcandidates and thereafter the respondent was appointed as Lecturer inthe regular pay-scale, initially on probation. The said appointment wasDafter obtaining appropriate approval from Director, School of MedicalEducation. The sanction was accorded by the Vice-Chancellor. Thatthereafter by order dated 21.10.2000, her probation was declared w.e.f.03.10.1999. That thereafter, she was appointed as Assistant Professorand thereafter as Associate Professor continuously in the regular pay-Escale.

6.1 It may be true that at the relevant time when she was appointedas Lecturer, the post was temporary but as observed hereinabove, onthat temporary post, her appointment was sanctioned by the Director aswell as Vice-Chancellor. As observed hereinabove, she has continuouslyFworked right from 1998 (03.10.1998) till she continued to work asAssociate Professor. At this stage, the Regulation 10.1 with respect tothe grant of CAS is required to be considered, which reads as under:-

“10.1. Previous regular service, whether national or internationalas Assistant Professor, Associate Professor or Professor orGequivalent in a University, College, National Laboratories or otherscientific/professional Organizations such as the CSIR, ICAR,DRDO, UGC, ICSSR, ICHR, ICMR, DBT, etc., should be countedfor direct recruitment and promotion under CAS of a teacher asAssistant Professor, Associate Professor, Professor or any othernomenclature these posts are described as per Appendix III-TableHNo. II provided that:

(a) The essential qualifications of the post held were not lowerAthan the qualifications prescribed by the UGC for AssistantProfessor, Associate Professor and Professor as the casemay be.

(b) The post is/was in an equivalent grade or of the pre-revisedscale of pay as the post of Assistant Professor (Lecturer)BAssociate Professor (Reader) and Professor.

(c) The candidate for direct recruitment has applied throughproper channel only.

(d) The concerned Assistant Professor, Associate ProfessorCand Professor should possess the same minimumqualifications as prescribed by the UGC for appointment tothe post of Assistant Professor, Associate Professor andProfessor, as the case may be.

(e) The post was filled in accordance with the prescribedselection procedure as laid down in the Regulations ofDUniversity/State Government/Central Government/Concerned Institutions, for such appointments.

(f) The previous appointment was not as guest lecturer forany duration, or an ad hoc or in a leave vacancy of lessthan one year duration. Ad hoc or temporary service ofmore than one year duration can be counted provided that:

E

(i) the period of service was of more than one year duration;

(ii) the incumbent was appointed on the recommendationof duly constituted Selection Committee; and F

(iii) the incumbent was selected to the permanent post incontinuation to the ad hoc or temporary service, withoutany break.

(g) No distinction should be made with reference to the natureof management of the institution where previous servicewas rendered (private/local body/Government), wasconsidered for counting past services under this clause.”

G

6.2 Regulation 10.1 is required to be read as a whole. As perclause 10.1(f), the previous appointment as ad hoc or temporary serviceof more than one year duration can be counted provided that : (i) the H

Aperiod of service was of more than one year duration; (ii) the incumbentwas appointed on the recommendation of duly constituted SelectionCommittee; and (iii) the incumbent was selected to the permanent postin continuation to the ad hoc or temporary service, without any break.

6.3 In that view of the matter, when the respondent workedBcontinuously right from 1998 initially as Lecturer, thereafter her probationwas confirmed; thereafter she was appointed/promoted as AssistantProfessor and thereafter again promoted to the post of AssociateProfessor on regular basis and on regular pay-scale, therefore, therespondent shall be entitled to get her regular service counted for theperiod from 03.10.1998 to 21.10.2011 for the purpose of grant of theCbenefit of CAS.

7. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, no errorhas been committed by the learned Single Judge and/or the DivisionBench of the High Court in allowing the writ petition / writ appeal anddirecting the University to grant the benefit of CAS after counting herDearlier service rendered from 03.10.1998. We are in complete agreementwith the view taken by the High Court. No interference of this Court iscalled for.

Under the circumstances, present appeal fails and deserves to bedismissed and is accordingly dismissed.

E

Devika Gujral

Appeal dismissed.

F

G

H