IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND DECEMBER 2009 / 1ST POUSHA 1931 OP.No. 16074 of 2002(L) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- DR.RAHEENA BEEGUM, AGED 56 YEARS, D/O.LATE MOHAMMED KANNU, ARANYA, HOUSE NO.1, GREM PARK VILLA, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR.K.ANAND, SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION, BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG, NEW DELHI-110 002, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 2. THE PRINCIPAL, GOVERNMENT COLLEGE FOR WOMEN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY ADV. MR.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDIA. R3 BY ADV. MR.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, SC, KERALA UTY. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/12/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P. NO. 16074/2002-l ORDER ON C.M.P. NOs.27174/2002 , 1793/2003 AND I.A.NO.3067/2005 IN O.P. NO. 16074/2002 CLOSED 22/12/2009. SD/- S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY GRANTES COMMISSION. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE APPLICATION MADE BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE RESUME SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 14/07/1998 SENT BY PETITIONER. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE LETTER NO.F-17-6/2001 RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS ATTACHED TO EXT.P5. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 29/03/2001. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE QUESTIONAIRE PREPARED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE PETITIONER ON 12/07/2001. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 03/10/2001 RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P11: COPY OF THE REPRESENTTION DATED 22/10/2001 FILED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P12: COPY OF THE FORWARDING LETTER ADDRESSED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P13: COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 11/05/2002 RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P14: COPY OF THE STATEMENT PREPARED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P15: COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P16: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, M/S.S. SURESHBABU & ASSOCIATES. EXT.P17: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 17/12/2004 SENT TO THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs. S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== O.P.No. 16074 of 2002 ================== Dated this the 22nd day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T While the petitioner was working as the Head of Department of Home Science (Nutrition) of the Government College for women Thiruvananthapuram, the 1st respondent-University Grants Commission issued Ext.P1 notification inviting applications from qualified persons for conducting research in a project, subject to the conditions mentioned in Ext.P1. The petitioner filed Ext.P2 application in the prescribed form along with Ext.P3 resume of her personal and professional career. The petitioner proposed a research project on “A study on the effect of diet, life style and ethnic factors on the prevalence of Cardio Vascular Diseases from different social groups in Kerala”. The proposal of the petitioner was approved by the UGC as per Ext.P5 communication. Ext.P6 is the terms and conditions of acceptance of research project. The first instalment of Rs.2,37,280/- was sanctioned by the UGC towards expenses for the project. While so, the petitioner retired on superannuation on 30.6.2001. The fact of retirement was intimated to the 1st respondent through the 2nd respondent, by Ext.P9. Thereafter, the petitioner was served with Ext.P10 communication dated 3.10.2001 intimating the petitioner that the 1st respondent has decided to withdraw the major research project o.p.16074/02 2 awarded to the petitioner, as she had suppressed the fact of her date of retirement in the application form. Despite Ext.P11 representation of the petitioner, by Ext.P13, the petitioner was directed to refund the amount of Rs.2,37,280/- paid to the petitioner as first instalment of grant for the research project. Ext.P15 consequential direction has been issued by the Principal to the Head Accountant to take steps to collect an amount of Rs.2,37,280/- from the petitioner. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: “a) call for the originals of the records leading to Exts.P10, P13 and P15 b) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the originals of Exhibits P10, P13 and P15. c) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 1st respondent to permit the petitioner to complete the project awarded to her. d) declare that the petitioner is entitled to continue with the project till completion irrespective of her retirement. e) declare that the petitioner is not liable to refund the amount allotted to her for the major research project by the 1st respondent.” 2. The contention of the petitioner is that she never suppressed the fact that she is due to retire after the start of the research project. She points out that in Ext.P2 application the petitioner had given her date of birth. The form for application is prescribed by Ext.P1 itself. That form does not contain a column o.p.16074/02 3 regarding the date of retirement of the applicant. Therefore, the question of the petitioner suppressing the fact that she was due to retire does not arise. Therefore, the allegation in Ext.P10 that the petitioner suppressed the fact regarding the date of retirement in the application form is clearly unsustainable is the contention of the petitioner. 3. She further submits that as per Ext.P1, the scheme is open to those in service as well as those who have retired from service and retired teachers below the age of 70 years are also eligible to participate in the research project. Therefore, according to the petitioner, there is no rhyme or reason for withdrawing the project on the ground that the petitioner suppressed the fact of superannuation in the application form. 4. The petitioner has produced vouchers and audited statement of accounts for the amounts spent by her out of the amounts received as per which, except Rs.5,514/-, she has spent the balance for the research project. 5. A statement has been filed by the Assistant Solicitor General on behalf of the 1st respondent seeking to support the impugned action. When the case was taken up for hearing, none appeared for the respondents, except the Government Pleader who appears only for the 2nd respondent, who is the principal of the o.p.16074/02 4 petitioner's college. 6. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 7. I have perused Exts.P1 and P2. Ext.P2 is in the form prescribed by Ext.P1. It does contain a column for date of birth of the applicant which has been duly filled up by the petitioner. But it does not contain a column for date of retirement/ superannuation. As rightly pointed out by the petitioner, the scheme of research was open to both teachers in service and retired teachers below the age of 70 years. In fact Ext.P1 prescribes a honorarium to retired teachers of Rs.3,000/- per month. It is also stated therein that if a teacher retires during the tenure of the project, he/she will also be eligible for honorarium on receipt of certificate from the Head of Institution about the date of superannuation and also subject to the condition that the applicant is not gainfully employed elsewhere. 8. Ext.P10 reads thus: “With reference to the letter received from Principal Investigator dated 16.7.2001 on the subject cited above, I am directed to inform that the commission has decided to withdraw the major research project awarded to Dr.(Mrs.) Raheena Begum, as she has suppressed the fact regarding her date of retirement in the application form. So, it is requested to (sic) that the amount of Rs.2,37,280/- paid vide this office letter or even no. dated 6.3.2001 as first instalment of grant under this major research project.” 9. In view of my above findings, there is absolutely no basis for the findings in Ext.P10 that the petitioner had suppressed the fact o.p.16074/02 5 regarding her date of retirement in the application form. When Ext.P1 contemplated award of the research work to both serving teachers and retired teachers and the scheme contemplated a honorarium for a teacher who retires during the tenure of the project, it is vain for the UGC to contend that since the petitioner did not disclose the fact of her impending superannuation in Ext.P2 application, the research project is liable to be withdrawn. Therefore, Ext.P10 and consequential orders, Exts.P13 and P15 are liable to be quashed. I do so. The original petition is allowed as above. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== O.P.No. 16074 of 2002-L ================== J U D G M E N T 22nd December, 2009