IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 24760 of 2009(L) -------------------------------- PETITIONERS: ---------------- 1. DR.J.ABRAHAM S/O.T.C.JOHN, AGED 65 YEARS, 'SHARON' SANTHOSH NAGAR, MANNUTHY, THRISSUR. (PROFESSOR, KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, TRICHUR (RETD)). 2. DR.K.V.VALSALA W/O. DR.A.RAJAN,AGED 65 YEARS 'AYILLIATH', 16, BLOCK ROAD,OLLUKKARA PO,THRISSUR. (PROFESSOR, KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, TRICHUR (RETD)). BY MR.T.SETHUMADHAVAN, ADVOCATE. MR.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH, ADVOCATE. MR.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR, ADVOCATE. MS.VANDANA MENON, ADVOCATE. RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, MAIN CAMPUS, VELLANIKKARA, THRISSUR. 2. THE REGISTRAR KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, MAIN CAMPUS, VELLANIKKARA, THRISSUR. BY MR. K.P. MUJEEB, SC FOR R1 & R2. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/11/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.24760/2009 A P P E N D I X PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT. P1 : COPY OF REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE R1-VICE CHANCELLOR OF UNIVERSITY DTD. 9.1.2009.(1) EXT. P2 : COPY OF REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE R1-VICE CHANCELLOR OF UNIVERSITY DTD. 9.12.2008.(3) EXT. P3 : COPY OF ORDER No.GA/C2/29151/06 PASSED BY R1 DTD. 24.7.09. (2) EXT. P4 : COPY OF COMMUNICATION DTD. 8.5.09 SUPPLIED TO 2ND PETITIONER BY R2. (1) EXT. P5 : COPY OF JUDGMENT DTD. 9.7.09 IN WRIT APPEAL No.2363/2008. (5) RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. // True Copy // P.A. to Judge. smp T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.24760 OF 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of November, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioners have retired from the service of the respondent-University while working as Professors. The 1st petitioner retired from service as Professor and Director, Centre of Excellence in Meat technology and Head of Department of Livestock Products Technology on 07.05.2003. The 2nd petitioner retired from service on 30.09.2003. 2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the denial of their claim for Career Advancement Promotion based on the introduction of UGC Scheme which was implemented in the University with effect from 01.01.1986 as per G.O.(P)No.179/90/AD dated 25.06.1990. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that the Career Advancement/ non-promotion was implemented in the University in the year 1996 based on the UGC recommendation. Under the said Scheme, the 1st petitioner is entitled to get Career W.P.(C) No.24760/2009 2 Advancement Promotion on completion of 8 years of service as Associate Professor and the 1st petitioner completed 8 years of service on 10.03.1990. Regarding the claim of the 2nd petitioner, it is averred that the 2nd petitioner was eligible for Career Advancement Promotion with effect from 31.08.1989 on which day she had completed 8 years of service as Associate Professor. When the petitioners were in service, the Career Advancement Promotion Scheme was not implemented and only after their retirement, the implementation was made. It is the case of the petitioners that several Associate Professors who were juniors to the petitioners have been granted the benefit. 4. Exhibits P1 and P2 are the representations submitted by the petitioners. They approached this Court earlier by filing W.P.(C)No.11002/2009 and as per the interim order dated 06.04.2009, the 1st respondent was directed to take a decision on Exhibits P1 and P2. Later the 1st respondent passed an order as per Exhibit P3 wherein the claim was rejected in toto. 5. The stand taken by the University appears to be is that since the petitioners have retired from service, the claim cannot W.P.(C) No.24760/2009 3 be sustained and reliance is placed on the judgment dated 21.11.2008 in W.P.(C) No.22151/2008 . 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the legal position is now covered by the judgment of a Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.2363/2008 (Exhibit P5) filed against the judgment in W.P.(C) No.22151/2008 relied on by the University in Exhibit P3. In Exhibit P5 judgment in Writ Appeal No.2363/2008, the Division Bench held thus in paragraph 2: “..........When there is no vacancy for cadre promotion, such persons are given grade promotion. In many establishments, of late, such promotions are being called Career Advancement Promotion. Whatever be the nomenclature, it is a promotion granted to persons, who do not have normal promotion chances, even after stagnating in the lower post for several years. The claim for promotion of an incumbent has to be considered with reference to the conditions obtained on the date of occurrence of the vacancy. In this case, there is no question of any vacancy arising in the cadre post. The said principle of law can be applied to the facts of this case also. The incumbent's claim has to be considered with reference to the time when he W.P.(C) No.24760/2009 4 attained the necessary qualification for promotion. If that be so, the appellant's turn arose for promotion in the year 2000. At that time, she was in service. She retired only four years thereafter. We also notice that the Government have approved the 1996 UGC Scheme for implementation in the State as per G.O.(P) No.171/99/H.Edn. dated 21.12.1999. Because of the delay and laches from the part of the University, it was implemented belatedly and for that reason the benefit flowing from the ACP Scheme cannot be denied to the appellant”. 7. The situation herein is also identical. The petitioners retired from service only after they became entitled for the Career Advancement Promotion as evident from the dates on which they have completed eight years of service on 10.03.1990 and 31.08.1989 respectively. The petitioners are also entitled for the benefit of Exhibit P5 judgment. 8. Therefore, the matter requires a reconsideration at the hands of the University in the light of the findings and directions of the Division Bench in Exhibit P5 wherein the respondent- University is also a party. Exhibit P3 is therefore quashed. W.P.(C) No.24760/2009 5 There will be a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to take a decision in the matter afresh and appropriate orders shall be passed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and consequential benefits also will be granted within a further period of two months. This writ petition is disposed of as above. T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE smp