IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2009 / 7TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 2573 of 2008(F) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- SAJEEV B.V., "KANMANI", BMC POST OFFICE, THRIKKAKARA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADVS. SMT.S.KARTHIKA MR.M.S.UNNIKRISHNAN SMT.K.P.GEETHA MANI MR.M.R.ANISON MR.T.R.RAJESH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS P.O., KOTTAYAM. 2. ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION, I.G.SPORTS COMPLEX, I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI, PIN-110 002. 3. THE DIRECTOR, SCHOOL OF TECHNOLOGY & APPLIED SCIENCE, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, KOTTAYAM. R1 & R3 BY ADV. MR. T.A. SHAJI, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY R2 BY. MR. MILLU DANDAPANI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.2573/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE PETITIONER DTD. 23.3.01. P2:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 17.8.02 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY. P3:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 29.1.03 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY. P4:- COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE MINUTES OF SYNDICATE DTD. 3.3.05. P5:_ COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 3.9.02 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY. P6:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 20.10.06 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY. P7:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 15.2.06 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY. P8:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 27.10.06 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. P9:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 21.6.05 IN WPC. 37739/03. P10:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 31.5.2005 IN WPC. NO.9666/2005. P11:- COPY OF THE MEMO DTD. 9.5.07 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. P12:- COPY OF THE EXPLANATION DTD. 30.5.07 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. P13:- COPY OF THE MEMO DTD. 5.12.07. P14:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 10.4.08 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. P15:- COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE AGREEMENT DTD. 25.11.05 EXECUTED BY THE UNIVERSITY. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS R1(a):- COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD.1.11.06 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. R1(b):- COPY OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 2573 of 2008-F - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 29th day of July, 2009. JUDGMENT The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of termination Ext.P13 whereby the contract appointment of the petitioner stands terminated for the violation of the terms and conditions of the agreement executed by him. 2. The petitioner was initially appointed on 30,3,2001 for a period of one year on contract basis in the School of Technology and Applied Science, which is a self financing institute directly run by the first respondent University. This was extended by a later order dated 17.8.2002 with one day break in service. Later, the University decided again that those lecturers appointed on contract basis, can continue without any break in service. The Syndicate of the University as per Ext.P4, resorted to grant UGC scale of pay to all the contract teachers also. But according to the petitioner, he was never given UGC scale. Exts.P5 and P6 are produced to show that some other lecturers were benefited by the said decision. Ext.P8 is the representation filed in the matter and later he filed W.P.(C) No.37739/2003 seeking for appropriate reliefs, but the said writ petition was dismissed for default on 21.6.2005. Ext.P10 is the interim order passed in a wpc 2573/08 2 writ petition filed by another person for compelling the University not to implement Ext.P4. 3. The present dispute arose when the petitioner applied for 89 days of leave with effect from 1.11.2006 on medical grounds which was sanctioned by the University. After the period of leave was over, he rejoined duty and applied for medical leave for a further period of 90 days from 30.10.2007. Subsequently, he was issued with a memo in the matter by the University seeking his explanation. He filed explanation as per Ext.P12. Rejecting it, Ext.P13 order of termination was passed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Ext.P13 order is passed without hearing the petitioner and going by the provisions of Appendix VIII to Part I K.S.R., he was entitled for leave for more than 90 days. It is pointed out that he had completed more than 5 years of service as a contract lecturer. It is further submitted that the termination offends Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is also submitted that none of the eligible benefits have been disbursed to the petitioner and the decision to terminate him is with ulterior motive. 5. The University has filed a counter affidavit. It is pointed out that the specific terms of contract are governed by Ext.R1(b), as per which the petitioner is eligible to have only 20 days casual leave and he is not entitled wpc 2573/08 3 for any medical leave. The petitioner was continuing on leave on his own without getting any sanction for the leave. It is therefore submitted that there is violation of the terms of contract which entitles the respondents to terminate the service. It is also pointed out that the absence of the petitioner from duties for a long period has affected the academic duties of the institution. The fee collected from the students is the only source of income for the self financing institutions. It is further explained that the Syndicate in its meeting held on 22.1.2008 had resolved to reject the request for UGC/AICTE scale to contract faculty of School of Technology and Applied Science. 6. The terms of contract have been reduced into in writing as evidenced by Ext.R1(b). The question is whether the petitioner is entitled for any other benefits than that is provided in Ext.R1(b). Evidently, there is no specific condition enclosed therein making applicable the leave rules under Part I K.S.R. Clause 3 provides that the person shall be eligible for 20 days casual leave. In that view of the matter, the reliance placed on Appendix VIII to Part I K.S.R. cannot be supported. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that provisions of K.S.R. are made mention of in Ext.P11. A reading of Ext.P11 shows that it has been made clear therein that the leave applied for on medical grounds is against the terms and wpc 2573/08 4 conditions of the bond submitted by him. The provisions of KSR is only mentioned to show that the maximum leave admissible to contract employees is 90 days, and that does not mean the said provisions are applicable to the petitioner. True that in Ext.P11 disciplinary action was proposed which was never continued. After the explanation was submitted by the petitioner, by Ext.P13 the respondents have passed an order terminating his contract service for violation of the terms and conditions in the agreement. 7. Even though detailed reasons have not been stated in Ext.P13, going by the terms of agreement Ext.R1(b), and the stand taken in the counter affidavit, it is plainly clear that the terms and conditions of the agreement have been violated by the petitioner. The undisputed facts show that the order is supportable. The respondents have only enforced the terms of Ext.R1(b). Therefore, this court cannot issue a futile writ, only to comply with the requirement to have a personal hearing. In that view of the matter, I do not find anything to interfere with the order Ext.P13. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was entitled for various benefits which are allowed to other similarly placed contract employees. In fact, going by the terms of the agreement, remuneration that was payable, has been offered to him. It is a self wpc 2573/08 5 financing course also. Therefore, the contention raised by the petitioner for various other benefits cannot be sustained. As explained in the counter affidavit, Ext.P4 is not applicable to petitioner and further the Syndicate has decided on 28.1.2008 to reject the request for UGC/AICTE scale to contract faculty. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. But this will not prejudice the rights of the petitioner to seek appointment on the specified terms and conditions on contract basis and respond to such notification issued by the University and the termination will not be treated as a bar for giving any fresh appointment on contract basis. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/