IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN MONDAY, THE 7TH DECEMBER 2009 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WA.No. 2687 of 2009() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.20043/2006 Dated 27/07/2009 .................... APPELLANT: PETITIONER ------------------------------------- K.K.BABU, KRISHNA KALLYANI, AISWARYA COLONY, OLAVAKKODE, PALAKKAD-678 002. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAVINDRAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.P.DEEPAK SMT.APARNA RAJAN RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE PRINCIPAL, N.S.S.COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, PALAKKAD-678 008. GP SMT.R.BINDU THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.BHAVADASAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------------------ WA No.2687 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Dated 7th December 2009 Judgment Balakrishnan Nair, J. The first petitioner in the Writ Petition is the appellant. The petitioners approached this Court for the redressal of several grievances. Some of their grievances were redressed by the Judgment under appeal. In this appeal, the appellant canvassed only one grievance, i.e., the non-reckoning of the period during which, he went for attending Masters Degree Programme in Civil Engineering in the Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, for placement in the post of Selection Grade Lecturer. He was on deputation to attend the P.G. course from 31.07.1991 to 31.01.1993. He joined service in the third respondent's college on 18.11.1983. On completion of eight years of service, he is entitled to be placed in the senior scale w.e.f. 18.11.1991. The said benefit was, in fact, granted to him, but later, by Ext.P6 order, the said date was revised, excluding the period of deputation mentioned above and the same was given effect, only from 21.03.1993. The appellant represented against it before the Director of Technical Education. Initially, there was no response, but WA No.2687/09 2 finally, his claim was rejected by Ext.P10 order. So, the Writ Petition was filed, challenging inter alia, Exts.P6 and P10. The official respondents supported their stand, taken in the aforementioned exhibits. They pointed out that there was no express provision in Annexure A1 scheme, which came into force from 01.01.1986, for reckoning the period on deputation for Faculty improvement, for placement in the senior scale, whereas in Annexure A3 scheme, which came into force from 01.01.1996, there is an express stipulation that the period spent on deputation for attending the Quality Improvement Programme should also be reckoned for placement in the Selection Grade. The learned Single Judge, after hearing both sides, directed the appellant and others to move the A.I.C.T.E. for appropriate reliefs. Dissatisfied with the said direction, this appeal is preferred. 2. We heard the learned Senior Counsel Shri.P.Ravindran for the appellant and also Smt.R.Bindu, learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents. In the absence of any express provision in Annexure A1 to the effect that the period spent on deputation for attending the Quality Improvement Programme should be reckoned, we think, the view taken by respondents 1 and 2 in the WA No.2687/09 3 matter is a plausible view. At any rate, the said view cannot be said to be one, which no man in his senses will take. It is well settled in Administrative Law that a difference of opinion is not a ground for judicial review. It has been repeatedly held by the House of Lords and the Apex court that two reasonable persons can come to diametrically opposite conclusions on the same set of facts without forfeiting their title to be regarded as reasonable men. In this case, the official respondents have taken a plausible view. Therefore, we are not justified in interfering with the same. We also notice that the learned Single Judge has directed the appellant to approach the A.I.C.T.E. If the A.I.C.T.E. renders a decision in favour of the appellant, the official respondents are bound to implement the same, unless the same is set aside in appropriate proceedings. In view of the above position, we find no merit in the Writ Appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sta WA No.2687/09 4 WA No.2687/09 5