IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 29TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 7TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 5470 of 2008(A) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER: ------------------ SOPHIA K.PHILIP, SELECTION GRADE LECTURER, DEPARTMENT OF CHEMISTRY, CHRISTIAN COLLEGE, CHENGANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.BABU VARGHESE RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE PRINCIPAL, CHRISTIAN COLLEGE, CHENGANNUR. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, VIKAS BHAVAN, PMG JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. * 4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. (* CORRECTED) THE ADDRESS OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT IS CORRECTED AS * THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, KOTTAYAM. * VIDE ORDER DATED 19/03/08 ON I.A.3830/2008. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.B.REMANI FOR R2, R3 & R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO. 5470/2008-A APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE SELECTION COMMITTEE FOR THE AWARD OF TEACHER FELLOWSHIP, HELD ON 17/12/2003. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE U.G.C. LETTER DATED 06/07/2004 AWARDING TEACHER FELLOWSHIP TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2(a): COPY OF THE G.O.(RT)NO.775/05 H. Edn. DATED 05/05/2005, ACCORDING SANCTION FOR DEPUTATION OF THE PETITIONER FOR UNDERGOING PH.D. COURSE FOR 2 YEARS. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE U.G.C. LETTER DATED 22/09/2006 GRANTING EXTENSION FOR THE TEACHER FELLOWSHIP FROM 16/12/2006 TO 31/03/2007. EXT.P3(a): COPY OF THE U.G.C. LETTER DATED 08/02/2007 GRANTING EXTENSION FOR THE TEACHER FELLOWSHIP FROM 01/04/2007 TO 15/12/2007. EXT.P3(b): COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 02/11/2006 ISSUED BY THE DCE GRANTING CONCURRENCE FOR THE EXTENSION UPTO 31/03/2007. EXT.P3(c): COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 13/03/2007 ISSUED BY THE DCE GRANTING CONCURRENCE FOR THE EXTENSION UPTO 15/12/2007. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE UNIVERSITY ORDER DATED 09/12/2004 GRANTING APPROVAL TO THE APPOINTMENT OF THE SUBSTITUTE TEACHER. EXT.P4(a): COPY OF THE U.G.C. LETTER DATED 25/03/2006 CONVEYING THE SANCTION OF THE PAYMENT OF SUBSTITUTE SALARY. EXT.P4(b): COPY OF THE U.G.C. LETTER DATED 25/03/2006 FORWARDING THE DEMAND DRAFT FOR THE AMOUNT TOWARDS SUBSTITUTE SALARY. EXT.P4(c): COPY OF THE U.G.C. LETTER DATED 09/03/2007 FORWARDING THE DEMAND DRAFT FOR THE AMONT TOWARDS SUBSTITUTE SALARY. EXT.P4(d): COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY MRS.ROSHNI THOMAS, SUBSTITUTE TEACHER DATED 29/07/2006, ACKNOWLEDGING THE RECEIPT OF THE SALARY. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 23/03/2007 FOR GRANTING EXTENSION OF THE DEPUTATION. EXT.P5(a): COPY OF THE CLARIFICATION GIVEN BY THE PRINCIPAL DATED 08/08/2007 TO THE DY. DIRECTOR. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER DATED 20/03/07 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY FOR THE YEAR 2005-06. W.P.(C). NO. 5470/2008-A EXT.P7: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 30/10/07 ISSUED BY THE DY. DIRECTOR. EXT.P7(a): COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 07/12/07 SENT BY THE DCE, TO THE PRINCIPAL DIRECTING TO TERMINATE THE SERVICE OF THE SUBSTITUTE TEACHER . EXT.P8: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION/REMINDER DATED 19/04/2007 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MINISTER. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 05/07/2005 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTORATE OF THE COLLEGIATE EDUCATION ALERTING THE PRINCIPALS TO THE CLAIM SUBSTITUTE SALARY PROMPTLY. EXT.P9(a): COPY OF THE GOVT. LETTER DATED 13/11/06, INFORMING THE “DECLARED POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT” TO THE DCE, IN THE MATTER OF GRANTING EXTENSION OF THE DEPUTATION TO TEACHER FELLOWSHIPS. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R3(a): COPY OF THE G.O.(RT)NO.1115/04/H. EDN DATED 17/08/2004. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rs/ ANTONY DOMINIC, J ----------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.5470/2008 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of September, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is presently working as a Selection Grade Lecturer in Christian College, Chengannur under the first respondent. As is seen from Ext.P9(a), it was a policy of the Government to improve the quality of Higher Education and as part thereof, a scheme was introduced by the UGC for faculty improvement of the colleges in the State. Accordingly, the petitioner was selected for a Phd fellowship under the 10th plan and for the period from 16.12.2004 to 15.12.206. As can be seen from Exts.P2 and P2(a), the UGC sanctioned the same and the Government also allowed it on deputation basis. Subsequently, by Ext.P3 and P3(a) the UGC granted extension by one year and the departmental authorities also granted concurrence as is evidenced by Exts.P3 series. Petitioner submits that a WP(c).No.5470/2008 2 substitute was appointed in terms of the UGC scheme and the salary paid was also reimbursed. Thereafter, the petitioner requested the Government to grant deputation for the extended period of the fellowship vide Ext.P5. It is stated that there was no response to this request. In the meanwhile petitioner continued her fellowship, completed the same and rejoined the college. 2. While so, the 3rd respondent issued Exts.P7(a) requiring the first respondent to make necessary application for extension of deputation for the extended period excluding the substitute appointed in the petitioner's place. The first respondent replied by Ext.P5(a) contending that there was no excess staff and referring to Ext.P6 it was contended that as against the sanctioned strength of 10 in the Chemistry department only 7 were actually working. It is stated that by Ext.P7 the 4th respondent certified that there are two excess teachers. WP(c).No.5470/2008 3 3. On account of all this, the deputation for the extended one year period has not been sanctioned and according to the petitioner her salary for that period also not disbursed. It is with this grievance the writ petition has been filed. 4. A counter affidavit filed by the respondent would show that according to them there were two excess teachers working in the Chemistry Department of the college at the relevant time. Therefore, they are contending for the position that though the petitioner was eligible to have the deputation for the extended period with consequential benefits, the college ought not have appointed a substitute teacher in her place. 5. It is stated that to justify the appointment of the substitute as per Exts.P5(a) and P6, the management has also included, MSc course which was sanctioned by the University and the Government without any additional financial liability. Therefore according to them this course WP(c).No.5470/2008 4 should be excluded and so reckoned, they are justified for the stand that two teachers were excess at the relevant time. 6. A reading of the counter affidavit shows that the respondents are not disputing the eligibility of the petitoner for extension of deputation for the one year which was sanctioned by the UGC and the department as well, as per Ext.P3 series of documents. However, the dispute is only regarding the action of the management in having appointed a substitute in her place. 7. The dispute regarding the correctness of the action of the management in appointing the substitute is not an issue arising in this writ petition and that issue need not stand in the way of respondents in granting the claim that is otherwise legitimately due to the petitioner. Therefore since the correctness of the action of the management in making substitute appointment is not an issue on which a decision is called for in this writ petition, all that this court need WP(c).No.5470/2008 5 say is that, it will be open to the Principal of the College to resubmit the claim of the petitioner, in which case the claim in so far as the petitioner will be considered afresh. It is clarified that I have not dealt with the correctness or otherwise of the substitute appointment made by the first respondent and that issue is left open to be decided in appropriate proceedings. 8. It is directed that once Ext.P7(a) is compiled with, the respondents 2 and 3 shall finally decide the matter as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE vi. WP(c).No.5470/2008 6