IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 16TH DECEMBER 2011 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WA.No. 1132 of 2011() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.16253/2006 Dated 09/07/2010 .................... APPELLANTS/ RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4 --------------------------------- 1. INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT IN GOVERNMENT, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR. 2. DIRECTOR, INSITUTE OF MANAGEMENT IN GOVERNMENT, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA RESPONDENTS/ PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1 - 2 ----------------------------------------------- 1. P.PADMANABHAN NAIR (ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR (RTD) INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT IN GOVT.), KINCHANS, GRA-B-126, VATTIYOORKAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-13. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE (P) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.LEO GEORGE R2 AND R3 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MS. GIRIJA GOPAL THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MANJULA CHELLUR, Ag. CJ & P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.A.No. 1132 OF 2011 ......................................................................... Dated this the 16th December, 2011 J U D G M E N T MANJULA CHELLUR, Ag. CJ. It is not in dispute that the appellant herein /Institute undertook a consultancy work worth about Rs.14.85 lakhs . So far as the application of consultancy rules (Ext.P1), there is no dispute. The only dispute seems to be, whether from the amount received as budget allocated for the consultancy work, when distributed between the Faculty and the Institute, how the expenses are to be deducted. According to the appellant Institute, from the amount received, no doubt, 2/3rd of the same has to go to the Faculty asper rule 7.6.3 and 1/3rd has to be paid to the Institute, but all the expenses for the consultancy work has to be borne by the Faculty who get 2/3rd of the budget. According to the respondent consultant before the learned Single Judge, W.A.No. 1132 OF 2011 2 the relevant service rules indicates how the expenses have to be borne and who has to bear the expenses and in whose name, the consultancy work is carried on. Therefore, these rules , if read along with Ext.P1, it would clarify the position that, first expenses of the consultancy work has to be deducted and from the balance 2/3rd goes to the consultant and 1/3rd goes to the institute . 2. The learned Single Judge, after referring to the service rules at Ext. P2 and also the consultancy rules at Ext. P1, ultimately held that after deducting the expenses from the consultancy fee, out of the balance, 2/3rd and 1/3rd has to be shared between the Faculty and the Institute. Aggrieved by the same, the Institute is before us. 3. We have gone through the service rules as well as the consultancy rules. The consultancy rules are framed by virtue of service rules . So far as service rules are concerned Chapter VII deals with Consultancy Rules. Rule 7.1(c) is the relevant rule which governs the case on hand, which reads as under: “(c) The direct expenses of the Institute shall W.A.No. 1132 OF 2011 3 be met in full from out of the consultancy fee. Thereafter one third of the amount will be the share to be given to the Institute.” 4. When we refer to the consultancy rules, rule 7.1. indicate that all the consultancy assignments undertaken by the Staff shall be institutional routed through the institute of management. We have to refer to rules 7.1 as well as 7.1(c) to understand in whose name the consultancy or assignments is taken and what are the restrictions imposed on the undertaking of consultancy or assignments. Rule 7.1 of the Consultancy Rules reads as under: “7.1. Consultancy Rules: Academic staff of the Institute will be permitted to undertake consultancy assignments. However all consultancy assignments undertaken by the staff shall be institutional i.e routed through the Institute of Management. Thus no member or staff can enter into consultancy contracts on his own. Every care should be taken in regard to the timing of the consultancy assignment. At a time when the Institute's training or other activities require the staff member's full W.A.No. 1132 OF 2011 4 involvement, consultancy assignments should be avoided. Consultancy assignments will be governed by the following rules: a) Prior approval of the Director shall be obtained. b) The maximum number of days a member of academic staff can be engaged in consultancy assignments is limited to 52 (fifty two ) in a year (including days spent on travel for the purpose). c) The direct expenses of the Institute shall be met in full from out of the consultancy fee. Thereafter one third of the amount will be the share to be given to the Institute. d) From out of the one third share of the Institute mentioned in © above, 25% will be earmarked for an endowment which will be used for arrangements of foundation day lecturers, publications, instituting fellowships and other research and development activities. e) the decision of the Director of the Institute will be final in all matters relating to consultancy assignments. ” 5. This makes it clear that except the institution, no member or staff or anyone concerned from the institute can W.A.No. 1132 OF 2011 5 individually undertake any consultancy or assignment and all the consultancy or assignments have to be in the name of the institution. Rule 7.1(c) is relevant, so far as expenses to be borne for the consultancy or assignment is concerned. A reading of the above rules makes it clear that from the consultancy fee, the entire direct expenses of the institute has to be met first and thereafter, 1/3rd from the balance will go to the institute, i.e., the appellant. If these rules are read along with the rule 7.6.1 and 7.6.3, it makes it clear that the consultancy proposals have 4 components, i.e., consultancy fee, direct expenses, institute assistance (research, clerical, material etc.) and institute support (overheads). Only the first two refer to the monetary components and the next two refer to other components of the consultancy proposal . If we take the first two components involving money, it would mean consultancy fee is separate from direct expenses. After deducting the direct expenses as referred to in the service rules, the balance has to be considered as consultancy fee, which has to be shared between the Faculty members and the institute in the proportion of 2/3rd and 1/3rd . A reading of service rules 7.1 W.A.No. 1132 OF 2011 6 (c) along with 7.6.3 would indicate, only after deducting direct expenses from the consultancy fee received, the amount has to be shared between the Faculty and the institute in the ratio of 2/3rd and 1/3rd and no further interpretation is possible from a reading of the above rules. The learned Single Judge has applied the same principle while referring to the consultancy rules and we are of the opinion that nothing remains for us to consider in this matter. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. MANJULA CHELLUR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk