IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI TUESDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2010 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1932 RP.No. 1084 of 2009() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WA.23/2008 Dated 22/09/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): IST RESPONDENT ------------------------------------ MRS.P.M.MINI, LECTURER IN MATHEMATICS, M.A.M.O.COLLEGE, MANASSERY, MUKKOM, CALICUT. BY ADV. SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S): APPELLANT/RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3:- --------------- 1. THE UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, BAHADURSHA ZAFAR MARG, NEW DELHI-11002. 2. THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT. 3. THE MANAGER, M.A.M.O.COLLEGE, MANASSERY, MUKKOM, CALICUT. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, STANDING COUNSEL FOR R2 SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, STANDING COUNSEL FOR R1 SMT.V.P. SEEMANTHINI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R3, THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= R.P. No. 1084 of 2009 in W.A. No. 23 of 2008 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 25th day of May, 2010 O R D E R Basheer, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the University Grants Commission. 2. This review petition is directed against the judgment in W.A. No.23 of 2008, which was disposed of by this Court on September 22, 2009, holding that there was no justification in granting permanent exemption to the petitioner to acquire the requisite qualification i.e., National Eligibility Test conducted by the University Grants Commission (for short “the Commission'), as directed by the learned Single Judge. 3. Petitioner, who was respondent No.1 in the Writ Appeal, has preferred this petition for review contending, inter alia, that an inadvertent mistake in the judgment has caused great hardship to her. It is contended that the R.P.1084/09 2 direction issued by the Division Bench restricting the benefit of the interim order dated January 18, 2008 only for a period of two years from the date of Ext.P5 order is an error apparent on the face of the record. The contention of the learned counsel is that such a direction will deprive the petitioner of the benefit of provisional exemption granted to her. It is pointed out that the petitioner has, on the strength of the interim order, satisfactorily completed her M.Phil and Ph.D. and she has now been awarded M.Phil Degree and Doctorate within the stipulated period. 4. In this context, the learned counsel invites our attention to Annexure-A order passed by the Commission, pursuant to the interim order dated January 18, 2008 of this Court in the appeal, granting exemption to the petitioner provisionally from passing NET for appointment to the post of Lecturer. It is brought to our notice that the petitioner has admittedly obtained M.Phil. and Ph.D. within the period of two years. 5. It is contended by the learned standing counsel for the Commission that the petitioner was granted exemption R.P.1084/09 3 only provisionally from passing N.E.T. for appointment to the post of Lecturer. However, it is conceded by the learned standing counsel that Ph.D. is an alternative prerequisite for appointment as Lecturer. 6. In that view of the matter, there can be no doubt that the petitioner has now procured qualification for permanent appointment as Lecturer. 7. The short question that remains to be considered is whether the direction issued by this Court in the judgment dated September 22, 2009 in the Writ Appeal has to be clarified/modified in the changed scenario. 8. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner the observation made by this Court that the exemption granted as per the interim order will remain in force for a period of two years from the date of Ext.P5 order of appointment will lead to unnecessary complications. 9. Ext.P5 appointment order was issued by respondent No.3 on October 6, 2003 on the basis of the declaration made by the petitioner that she would acquire the prescribed eligible qualification within a period of two years. Much water R.P.1084/09 4 has flowed under the bridge thereafter. 10. Petitioner had applied for exemption after her appointment. There were two or three litigations before this Court, pertaining to the question whether or not she would be entitled to get permanent exemption. 11. Ultimately, a learned Single Judge held that the petitioner would be entitled to get permanent exemption. The above judgment was challenged by the Commission in the above Writ Appeal. 12. While admitting the Writ Appeal the Division Bench passed the following interim order on January 18, 2008:- “2. Having regard to the facts of the case, the U.G.C. is directed to grant exemption provisionally to the petitioner from passing NET in the light of the criteria laid down in Ext.R1(c) and the rules contained in Ext.P4 Regulations, subject to the result of the writ appeal (emphasis supplied by us).” 13. Pursuant to the above interim order the Commission passed Annexure-A order on March 17, 2008, granting R.P.1084/09 5 provisional exemption to the petitioner from passing NET for appointment to the post of Lecturer. As mentioned earlier, petitioner has now admittedly obtained P.Hd. and M.Phil, which would enable her to get appointment. 14. In our view the provisional exemption granted by the Commission on the strength of the interim order has to be given due weight and consideration. 15. Therefore, it is clarified that the provisional exemption granted by the Commission, pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court, will enure to the benefit of the petitioner from the date of Annexure-A order and not from the date of Ext.P5 order of appointment. The review petition is allowed accordingly. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE. P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE. mn.