IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 12TH OCTOBER 2009 / 20TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 24597 of 2007(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- DR.B.AMBIKA VARMA, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR,COLLEGE OF FORESTRY, KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY,VELLANIKKARA, TRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.JAYACHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION COMMISSIONER, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF KERALA AGRICULTURE UNIVERSITY,REPRESENTED BY THE VICE CHANCELLOR, KAU POST, VELLANIKKARA, TRISSUR. 3. THE REGISTRAR,KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY,KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY POST, VELLANIKKARA, TRISSUR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.DILEEP MOHAN FOR R1 SRI.K.P.MUJEEB, SC FOR UNIVERSITY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/10/2009, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 33123 OF 2007 & WPC NO. 10168 OF 2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.24597/07 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.GA/18373/C2/84 DATED 12.9.1984. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.GA/C2/19794/86 DATED 25.3.1987. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE GO(P) NO.179/90/AD DATED 25.6.90. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 3.12.96 IN OP NO.3764/91. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.GA/C2/7471/97 DATED 24.3.1998. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 15.7.99. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 3.10.2000. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 22.3.02. EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 25.9.03. EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 24.11.03. EXT.P11: TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 2.5.07. EXT.P12: TRUE COPY OF FORWARDING LETTER DATED 18.3.05. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NOs. 24597/07, 33123/07 & 10168 OF 2008 ======================== Dated this the12th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T The main case is WP(C) No.24597/07, and hence, I shall deal with the claim in that writ petition first. 2. The petitioner states that being a Post Graduate holding a Doctoral and Post Doctoral qualifications, she worked in the CSIR as Post Doctoral fellow during the period from 1977 to 1980. Thereafter in March 1980, she was selected as Research Associate at CSIR. Subsequently, by Ext.P1 order of 12/9/84, she was appointed as a CSIR Research Associate in the Kerala Agricultural University for a period of one year on consolidated pay of Rs.1100/-. This was approved and ratified by the 2nd respondent also. 3. It is her case that she was assigned teaching duties and that taking into account the duties discharged by the petitioner, on 1/9/86, the 2nd respondent decided to appoint the petitioner in the University as a Junior Assistant Professor. However, sanction for creation of the post was not accorded and therefore by Ext.P2 order of 25/3/87, petitioner was appointed as WPC Nos. 24597/07, 33123/07 & 10168 OF 2008 :2 : a Research Associate for a period of one year. The term of appointment was extended periodically upto 24/3/91, and while so, based on a complaint received from the Teachers' Association, in 1991, the 2nd respondent decided to terminate the appointment of the petitioner. 4. Petitioner challenged the decision of the 2nd respondent before the Supreme Court by filing a Writ Petition and obtained an order of stay. Subsequently, that writ petition was made over to this Court and was numbered as OP No.3746/91. Meanwhile, the petitioner also filed Original Petition before this Court as OP No.3764/91. These original petitions were heard and disposed of by Ext.P4 judgment rendered on 3/12/96. The relevant portion of which reads as under. Considering all these aspects and following the principles laid down in the various decisions of the Supreme Court referred to above, I think it is a fit case where the University should evolve a scheme to absorb the petitioner in a suitable post. Considering her qualification and experience, I am sure that she will be an asset to the University. So, there will be a direction to the respondents to provide a suitable post to the petitioner in the University befitting her qualification and experience and also the service she has rendered to the University for the last so many years. Ext.P12 will stand stayed till the University takes a decision to absorb the petitioner in service. WPC Nos. 24597/07, 33123/07 & 10168 OF 2008 :3 : 5. Accordingly, the Executive Committee in its 320th meeting held on 7/3/98 considered the matter and resolved to appoint the petitioner as Assistant Professor w.e.f. 3/12/96, the date on which Ext.P4 judgment was rendered. On that basis, Ext.P5 order dated 24/3/98 was issued appointing the petitioner as Assistant Professor. Petitioner was not satisfied with the appointment. According to the petitioner, since in Ext.P4 judgment, this Court directed that she should be absorbed in the post befitting her qualification and experience, petitioner contended that she ought to have been appointed atleast as an Associate Professor and that too w.e.f. 1/1/86. It was on this basis, she submitted Exts.P6 to P12 representations. 6. While so, the Establishment Committee of the University by its decision taken on 16/12/04 decided to recommend that the petitioner be absorbed counting her service from 1984 onwards. A decision on the recommendation has not been taken and it was at that stage the writ petition was filed praying for directing the 3rd respondent to regularize the petitioner as Assistant Professor from 27/9/84, induct her into 1986 UGC scheme w.e.f. 1/1/86 and grant her all further WPC Nos. 24597/07, 33123/07 & 10168 OF 2008 :4 : monetary benefits. 7. In so far as WP(C) No.33123/07 is concerned, the prayer is for extending her the benefit of the 1986 UGC Scheme. During the pendency of this writ petition, by order dated 12/11/2007, she was given Assistant Professor Senior Scale. Petitioner was not satisfied with this either, and therefore filed WP (C) No.10168/08. During the pendency of this writ petition, she was given senior scale w.e.f. 2001 and promotion as Associate Professor w.e.f. 2001. Therefore, with the orders thus issued, the grievance in these writ petitions stand redressed. 8. In so far as the first writ petition, viz., WP(C) No.24597/07, as already noticed, the contention now raised by the petitioner is based on Ext.P4 judgment, which directed that the petitioner shall be absorbed consistent with her qualification and experience. The University's defence appears to be that in terms of the 1986 UGC Scheme, the petitioner could have been absorbed in the entry cadre viz., Assistant Professor, which it has done. It is stated that further advancement in career can be only in terms of the UGC scheme, and therefore, the petitioner cannot seek direct absorption as Associate Professor. WPC Nos. 24597/07, 33123/07 & 10168 OF 2008 :5 : 9. In my view, this claim of the petitioner will be substantially redressed if the 2nd respondent takes a decision on the recommendation of the Establishment Committee taken on 16/12/2004 for counting the petitioner's services from 1984. Nothing has been placed on record by the University to indicate that a final decision in this matter has been taken. Therefore, as atpresent, I am inclined to think that the petitioner's grievance can be redressed if the 2nd respondent takes a decision in the above matter. 10. Therefore, I dispose of WP(C) No.24597/07 directing the 2nd respondent to take a decision on the recommendation of the Establishment Committee to absorb the petitioner counting her service from 1984 onwards. Taking into account the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is due for retirement in November, 2009, I direct that a decision shall be taken as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within four weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. Writ petitions are disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp