IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 12TH AUGUST 2010 / 21ST SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 19564 of 2010(U) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.O.FRANCIS, LECTURER SELECTION GRADE, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, CHRIST COLLEGE, IRINJALAKKUDA. BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION, BEHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG, NEW DELHI-110 002, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY & REGIONAL HEAD, UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION, SOUTH WESTERN REGIONAL OFFICE, GANDHI NAGAR, BANGALORE. 3. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION (C) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, KERALA STATE, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, THRISSUR. ADV. SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, STANDING COUNSEL FOR R1,2 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.DILIP MOHAN-R3 TO 5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO. 19564 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of August, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a Selection Grade Lecturer in the Commerce Department in Christ College, Irinjalakkuda affiliated to the Calicut University. This Writ Petition has been filed mainly challenging Exts.P9 and P11 orders declining concurrence to the petitioner to join the full time research work under the Faculty Development Programme ( for short 'FIP' only) sanctioned by the second respondent as per Ext.P5 and for consequential reliefs. Ext.P5 is the order dated 9.3.2010 for award of Teacher Fellowship under FIP during the 11th plan programme. Admittedly, guidelines have been issued for applying for FIP deputation. As per the 10th plan guidelines, for applying for FIP deputation, a teacher should not be more than 45 years of age on the date of application. However, the said age is relaxable by five years in the case of women teachers and teachers belonging to SC/ST categories. Ext.P4 guidelines would reveal that for applying for FIP deputation, a teacher should not be more that 50 years of age on the date of application and the said age limit W.P.(C) NO.19564/2010 2 is relaxable by five years in the case of women teachers and teachers belonging to SC/ST/OBC (non-creamy layer)/Minority Communities on the date of application. The contention of the petitioner is that he has been continuing his research leading to Ph.d which is an extension of M.Phil project. In the said circumstances, he has submitted an application for FIP deputation through the Principal of the college along with the records for Fellowship for completing his research. As per Ext.P1, the age limit for applying for FIP deputation was 45 years and the same was enhanced as per Ext.P4. According to the petitioner, he belongs to the minority community and therefore, he is entitled for exemption of five years in terms of Ext.P2 order. Further, he could remain in service six years more as his date of superannuation is 31.3.2006. In the circumstances, he has submitted an application to the 4th respondent through the Principal of the college for concurrence to join for Full Time Research Work in terms of Ext.P5. The Principal of the college recommended for deputation. The contention of the petitioner is that the third respondent has failed to take note of the entitlement in the petitioner's application with respect to the eligibility of the petitioner to get relaxation. W.P.(C) NO.19564/2010 3 After considering the application submitted by the petitioner for FIP deputation, the third respondent declined to depute the petitioner as per Ext.P9. In short, according to the petitioner, it is the non-consideration of the relevant aspect of his entitlement for relaxation of the age as revised by the University Grants Commission as per Ext.P4 that made the third respondent to hold that the age for applying for deputation was 45 years. Thereupon, the petitioner has submitted an application for review of Ext.P9 order vide Ext.P10. Ext.P10 would reveal that it is an application before the Minister for Education. I do not think that an employee could maintain such an application. The petitioner contends that Ext.P11 is an order passed by the fourth respondent declining his request for FIP deputation. The short contention of the petitioner is that while passing Exts.P9 and P11 orders, the question regarding the entitlement of the petitioner for relaxation was not at all considered by the respondents. It was in the said circumstances that this Writ Petition has been filed challenging Exts.P9 and P11 in the light of Exts.P4 and P5. 2. A statement has been filed on behalf of the fourth respondent in this Writ Petition. It is stated therein that Ext.P4 is the guidelines for W.P.(C) NO.19564/2010 4 the Scheme of Faculty Development Programme for colleges. It is evident from the statement that the FIP is intended to enhance the academic and intellectual environment in the institution by providing faculty members with enough opportunities to pursue research and also to participate in seminars/conferences/workshops. The conditions for deputation of FIP have been specifically stipulated thereunder. Clause 3.1.2 prescribes that teachers should not be more than 50 years of age on the date of application. It is evident that the petitioner is aged 50 years. It is further stated therein that as per the scheme, the normal period of deputation is two years extandable by one year. That apart, it is specifically stated therein that after obtaining the concurrence from the University Grants Commission, if a teacher is found eligible under the State Scheme, he or she has to execute a bond that he or she, would serve the Government by the next two years on completion of the period of deputation. It is also specifically stated thereunder that the age of retirement is 55 years. In paragraph 3 of the statement, it is stated that since State Government is the Pay Master, the government is having discretion to accept the guidelines or not, as the 11th plan guidelines did not lay down any mandatory conditions. W.P.(C) NO.19564/2010 5 That apart, it is stated therein that based on the 11th plan guidelines, concurrence for the FIP deputation was issued to many teachers. Subsequently, a group of teachers in the age range of 45-55 have requested to issue concurrence for FIP deputation. Under the said circumstances, a clarification has been sought from the Government regarding the age. Government have issued letter No.12506/K1/10/H Edn. dated 19.4.2010 clarifying that the age limit for the issue of concurrence for FIP deputation under the University Grants Commission should be considered as usual (ie., 45 years of age relaxable by 5 years in case of women teachers and SC/ST category). As the date of birth of the petitioner is 11.5.1960, his application for concurrence for deputation was rejected. Since the age of retirement in the state is 55, the petitioner cannot, as a matter of right, claim for FIP deputation. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader and also the learned standing counsel for respondents 1 and 2. The contentions of the petitioners would reveal that the petitioner is seeking for relaxation based on Ext.P5. It was after considering the same that Ext.P11 was issued. Ext.P9 is not an order passed on the W.P.(C) NO.19564/2010 6 application submitted by the petitioner. In fact, it is only a letter issued by the Government to the 4th respondent intimating him governmental decision not to make any change with respect to the guideline issued in the matter of FIP deputation with respect to the age for deputation. Ext.P11 would reveal that it is a letter issued by the fourth respondent to the Principal of the college in which the petitioner is working. The fourth respondent has also returned the application submitted by the petitioner along with Ext.P11letter. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit in this Writ Petition wherein relying on Ext.P13 G.O dated 1.12.2009 he raised certain other contentions as well. The facts expatiated above would reveal that the question whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefits under Ext.P5 for the purpose of getting deputation for FIP was not actually considered by the Government. In fact, no decision has been taken on his application. In view of Ext.P9, the application submitted by the petitioner was returned by the fourth respondent. Going by the provisions, concurrence of the Government is required for deputation. It is true that as per Ext.P9 letter, fourth respondent was intimated of the decision of the Government to maintain the present position with respect to the age of FIP W.P.(C) NO.19564/2010 7 deputation. A close scrutiny of Exts.P9 and P11 would reveal that the entitlement of the petitioner for exemption and whether Ext.P5 is applicable were not considered by the third respondent. It is obvious from Ext.P11 that application of the petitioner routed through the Principal of the college in which the petitioner is working, was returned based on Ext.P9 letter. In other words, the application submitted by the petitioner was never forwarded to the concerned authority and that authority had no occasion to consider the entitlement of the petitioner. In the said circumstances, without making any observations as to the entitlement of the petitioner for deputation to FIP, this Writ Petition is disposed of on the following grounds:- The application submitted by the petitioner for deputation to FIP shall be re-submitted by the Principal of Christ College, Irinjalakkuda to the fourth respondent for the purpose of forwarding the same to the Government for passing appropriate orders thereon. This shall be done by the Principal, Christ College, Irinjalakkuda within one week from the date of its receipt. On its receipt, fourth respondent shall forward the same, within two weeks thereafter. There will be a further direction to the third W.P.(C) NO.19564/2010 8 respondent to consider the request of the petitioner for FIP deputation in the light of the relevant provisions and orders expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of its receipt. This Writ Petition is disposed of as above. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO.19564/2010 9 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. JUDGMENT September, 2010 W.P.(C) NO.19564/2010 10