IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 7TH MARCH 2011 / 16TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 8735 of 2006(M) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- DR. KOCHUTHRESSIA. P.J., LECTURER SELECTION GRADE, DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH, LITTLE FLOWER COLLEGE, GURUVAYOOR. BY ADV. SRI.N.SUGATHAN, SMT.VARSHA BHASKAR. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR CALICUT UNIVERSITY CAMPUS, THENHIPALAM, MALAPPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, THRISSUR. 3. THE MANAGER, LITTLE FLOWER COLLEGE, GURUVAYOOR. R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.M.R. SREELATHA. R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR, SC, CALICUT UTY. SRI.E.S.ASHRAF, SC, CALICUT UNIVERSITY. R3 BY ADV. SRI.BABY ISSAC ILLICKAL. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/03/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs WP(C).No. 8735 of 2006(M) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE UNIVERSITY NO.G.AII/SPECIAL CELL 1/782/2000 DATED 25/04/2000. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE UNIVERSITY NO.GA.II/SPL. CELL/2/885/2002 DATED 30/10/2002. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE UNIVERSITY NO.GA II/SPL. CELL/2/1008/05 DATED 31/01/2006. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R1(a): COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF G.O. DATED 21/12/1999. EXT.R1(b): COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE G.O.(P) NO.171/99/H.EDN. DATED 21/12/1999. EXT.R1(c): COPY OF THE RE-OPTION OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.R1(d): COPY OF THE LETTER NO.GA.II/SPL. CELL.2/1008 DATED 20/06/2005. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.8735/2006-M ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 7th day of March, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging Ext.P3 order passed by the University whereby the date of effect of Lecturer Selection Grade has been modified to 30/08/2002. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that she was appointed on 04/08/1989 till 06/07/1991 as Lecturer and was reappointed later from 03/08/1993. The U.G.C Scheme enables her to get placement as Lecturer Senior Scale and, thereafter, as Lecturer Selection Grade. By Ext.P1, Senior Scale has been granted from 30/08/1999. Ext.P2 will show that Selection Grade was granted with effect from 30/08/2000. 3. The main reason for modification, stated in Ext.P3 is that the petitioner is not eligible for Ph.D relaxation. This is under challenge in the writ petition. 4. The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit. The justification as sought for the order W.P.(C). No.8735/2006 -:2:- passed as per Ext.P3 is by relying upon the clauses of G.O.(P).No.171/99/H.Edn., dated 21/12/1999. 5. In paragraph (3) of the counter affidavit filed by the University, it is stated that the minimum length of service for eligibility to move into Lecturer Selection Grade as per criteria 6-20 of the revised U.G.C scheme shall be 5 years whether he or she has Ph.D or not. As per criteria 6-32 of revised U.G.C Scheme, eligibility of 5 years service has been relaxed in respect of those teachers who took 8 years of service in Lecturer post for placement to Senior Scale. The petitioner belongs to this group and that is why she was placed as Lecturer Selection Grade with effect from 30/08/2002 taking into consideration total number of years as 11, although she was not having 5 years service in the Senior Scale to get promotion to the Selection Grade. It is also pointed out that the petitioner is not eligible for Ph.D relaxation as she has got Ph.D only after Senior Scale placement. The contention taken is that the placement in the Selection Grade given by the Management was erroneous. W.P.(C). No.8735/2006 -:3:- 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that similar benefits have been granted to various other teachers of the college. Details have been stated in paragraph (4) of the reply affidavit. 7. Evidently, the respondents have applied the scheme as it stands and, therefore, only in terms of the clauses therein, the petitioner could have been given the benefit. Therefore, I find no reason to interfere with the order Ext.P3. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the light of the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner is not granted annual increments after 2004. Further, promotion as Associate Professor as well as the benefits of the revised U.G.C Scheme 2006 have also not been granted. It is pointed out that the petitioner will retire on superannuation on 31/03/2011. 9. Therefore, while upholding the order Ext.P3, I direct the respondents to see that the eligible benefits due to the petitioner in terms of the revised U.G.C Scheme 2006, arrears consequent on sanctioning of W.P.(C). No.8735/2006 -:4:- increments and other service benefits as found eligible will be granted after refixing the pay in terms of Ext.P3. The claim for promotion will also be considered in terms of the scheme. Since the petitioner will retire on 31/03/2011 appropriate steps will be taken so that retirement benefits will be disbursed expeditiously. The same will be finalised within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. Sd/- (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms