IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 19TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 30TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 28578 of 2007(B) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- RACHEL GEORGE, LIBRARIAN, MARTHOMA COLLEGE, CHUNGATHARA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.S.MUHAMMED HANEEFF. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY IT'S SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, KOZHIKODE. 4. UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, BHAHADUR SHA SAFAR MARG, NEW DELHI. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. V. MANU, R4 BY MR.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.S.G. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.28578/2007-B: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE STATEMENT NO.A2/6039/98 DTD 30/11/98. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DTD. 25/09/2006 IN W.P.(C).NO.6460/2006 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO. F8-66/2005(GPP-1, DTD. 20/04/2007 ISSUED BY THE UGC. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE G.O.(RT).NO.1006/07/H. EDN. DTD. 23/05/2007. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PRINCIPAL, MARTHOMA COLLEGE, CHUNGATHARA BEFORE THE R.2. DTD. 06/06/2007. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO. 25818/07/CED DTD. 27/07/2007 ISSUED BY THE R.2. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R2.A: COPY OF THE G.O.(MS).NO.119/04 DT. 17/09/04. EXT.R2.B: COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION STATEMENT. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J ........................................... WP(C).NO.28578 OF 2007 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a Librarian Grade IV in Marthoma College, Chunkathara, affiliated to University of Calicut. 2. According to her, on completion of ten years, she was granted Grade III but however monetary benefits were not given for the reason that the Library was not upgraded. Representations were filed both by the petitioner and by the Principal, which finally resulted in Ext.P4 order passed by the Government directing the second respondent to take appropriate steps for refixing the staff pattern of Library in accordance with G.O(Ms) 119 of 2004 dated 17.9.2004 taking into account the inclusion of the College in the list of Colleges under Section 2(f) and 12(B) of the UGC Act. 3. Accordingly, Ext.P6 order was passed by the DPI. In Ext.P6, the claim of the petitioner has been turned down for two reasons. One is that Colleges which are not in E Grade, can claim UGC scale for Librarians only if such Colleges are receiving financial grant from the Wpc 28578/2007 2 UGC. This the petitioner submits is contrary to Ext.P3, evidencing that UGC grant is being paid to the College. The next reason stated is that in terms of G.O(Ms) Nos.119 of 2004, E Grade Colleges are eligible only for Librarian Grade IV. In so far as this objection is concerned, Ext.R2(a) is the copy of G.O.(Ms)No.119 of 2004 dated 17.9.2003. Going by the Appendix to Ext.R2(a), staff pattern provided for E- Grade Colleges include only post of Librarian Grade IV. Ext.R2(b) is the staff pattern fixed for the College in question which indicates that the College is a E-Grade College. If that be the factual position, the second reason assigned by the Director in Ext.P6 is unassailable. 4. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to my notice G.O.(Ms) 50/08/Higher Edn dated 9.5.2008 modifying G.O(Ms) 119 of 2004 relied on in Ext.P6. According to the learned counsel, Clause 5 of the said G.O provides that Librarians who had UGC qualification on 17.9.2004 would be eligible to get salary in UGC scale subject to other conditions mentioned in the order. It is also pointed out that clause 5(2) provides that E Grade Colleges getting UGC grant will also be allowed the benefit of UGC scale. It is contended that in view of this Government order, the petitioner is entitled to the monetary Wpc 28578/2007 3 benefits in the UGC scale. However the fact remains that petitioner raised her claim in the light of G.O(Ms) 119 of 2004 and it was in that context alone, Government considered her claim and decided in Ext.P6. If, in the meanwhile, G.O(MS) 119 of 2004 has undergone modification, and on that basis, petitioner has become eligible for the benefit claimed, it is for the petitioner to raise that claim and it is thereupon for the respondents to decide the matter. 5. Having regard to the contention raised by the petitioner, relying on G.O.(Ms)50/08/ Higher Edn dated 9.5.2008 referred to above, the writ petition is disposed of directing that it will be open to the petitioner to make a proper representation to the second respondent for the benefit of the said G.O in which event, the second respondent shall consider the matter in the light of the G.O and other relevant materials. Orders shall be passed within six weeks of receipt of a representation as directed above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE lgk