IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2011 / 10TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 35256 of 2009(B) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- DR.B.AMBIKA VARMA, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, COLLEGE OF FORESTRY, KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, VELLANIKKARA, TRISSUR, RESIDING AT LAKSHMIPURAM, ROYAL AVENUE, TRISSUR-20. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.JAYACHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, THE VICE CHANCELLOR, KAU POST, VELLANIKKARA, TRISSUR. 2. THE REGISTRAR, KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, KAU POST, VELLANIKKARA, TRISSUR. R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.P.MUJEEB, SC, KERALA AGRI UNIVERSITY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss W.P.(C) NO.35256/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DTD. 27.4.84. P2:- COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DT. 3.12.96 IN OP. NO.3764/1991. P3:- COPY OF THE G.O. (P) 179/90/AD DTD. 25.6.1990. P4:- COPY OF THE G.O.(P) NO.171/99 H.EDN. DTD. 21.12.99. P5:- COPY OF THE PROCEEDING NO.GA/C2/7471/97 DTD. 24.3.98. P6;- COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF RECOMMENDATION OF THE ESTABLISHMENT COMMITTEE. P7:- COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGNO.GA/C2/34229/08 DTD. 25.11.2009. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL:- TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE tss T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.35256 of 2009-B - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 1st day of July, 2011. JUDGMENT Ext.P7 proceedings of the University refusing the prayer of the petitioner for considering her service as Research Associate for service benefits including promotion to higher post, is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. After the judgment of this Court, Ext.P2, the petitioner was given appointment by the University as Assistant Professor by Ext.P5 order dated 24.3.1998. The petitioner was not satisfied with the same, as the earlier adhoc services during different periods were not considered. According to the petitioner, she should have been appointed as Associate Professor itself, especially in the light of the direction issued by this Court in Ext.P2 judgment. Reliance is also placed on the UGC Schemes, 1986 and 1996. 3. Already the petitioner has retired from service. She was initially appointed as a Research Associate pursuant to Ext.P1 notification. The dates of appointment and the tenure are as shown below: wpc 35256/2009 2 27.9.1984 - Appointment for one year (with consolidated pay of Rs.1100/-) 3.1.1986 - Appointment extended for one more year from 27.9.1985 to 27.9.1986 25.3.1987 - The petitioner was transferred and posted to the College of Forestry for one year (with consolidated pay of Rs.1800/-) 25.3.1988 - The period was extended to 25.3.1989 25.3.1989 - The period was extended to 25.3.1990 (with consolidated pay of Rs.2000/-) 25.3.1990 - The period was extended to 25.3.1991 (with consolidated pay of Rs.3200/-) The consolidated pay which was originally fixed as Rs.1,100/- was increased upto Rs.3,200/-during the last extension. In the year 1991 there was a decision not to grant further extension, which was challenged by the petitioner before the Apex Court and the same was made over to this Court which led to Ext.P2 judgment. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Ext.P2 judgment will show that this Court directed the University to evolve a scheme to absorb the petitioner in a suitable post befitting her qualification and experience and also the service she rendered in the University. It is pointed out that in spite of the same, while granting appointment she was only posted as Assistant Professor as a fresh appointee from the date of the wpc 35256/2009 3 judgment, viz. 3.12.1996. It is further pointed out that 1986 U.G.C. Scheme was introduced by order dated 25.6.1990 which was effective from 1.1.1986 itself. Going by the same, an Assistant Professor is entitled for Career Advancement Promotion as Associate Professor in the scale of pay of Rs.3700-5700 on completion of 8 years of service. Accordingly, it is contended that she was legally entitled to be absorbed in the post of Asst. Professor in the scale of pay of Rs.3000-5000 with effect from 1.1.1986 and to be promoted as Associate Professor in the scale of pay of Rs.3700-5700 with effect from 27.7.1989. Alternatively, the petitioner, at least should have been absorbed as Associate Professor in the said scale with effect from 3.12. 1996. The U.G.C. Scheme, even though was implemented, that also was not applied to her. The petitioner relies upon Ext.P6 recommendation of the Establishment Committee, whereby the Committee recommended for consideration of the petitioner's continuous service with effect from 27.9.1984 in view of Ext.P2 judgment, for promotion to the post of Associate Professor and Professor in 1986 and 1996 UGC Schemes. It is averred that even thereafter, the respondents did not consider her case which compelled her to approach this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.24597/2007 and as per the interim order passed by this Court, she was interviewed. Later, she was granted Career Advancement Promotion wpc 35256/2009 4 under the 1996 U.G.C. Scheme, to the post of Assistant Professor (Senior Scale) with effect from 3.12.2000 and as Associate Professor with effect from 3.12.2005. Later, the writ petition, viz. W.P.(C) No.24597/2007 was disposed of directing the first respondent to take a decision on Ext.P6 recommendation of the Establishment Committee. The recommendation therein was to count the previous service from 27.9.1984 to 3.12.1996 for granting promotions to the post of Associate Professor and Professor under 1986 and 1996 UGC Schemes. 5. The respondents have filed a statement opposing the prayers of the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that going by Ext.P2 judgment, the petitioner had to be absorbed in a suitable post considering her qualification and experience. The previous experience was never considered and she was absorbed as Assistant Professor as a fresh appointee. It is therefore submitted that the proceedings, Ext.P7 is totally against the directions issued in the said judgment. 7. Learned Standing Counsel for the University submitted that the direction is only to absorb the petitioner in a suitable post. There are no provisions for counting the previous adhoc service for any purpose. All the appointments were made on consolidated pay. Therefore, the said wpc 35256/2009 5 appointments will not confer any benefit and the benefit, if at all conferred by Ext.P2 judgment, is for absorption in the regular service of the University. As far as other candidates are concerned, they will have to face a selection process also. Therefore, it is contended that the rejection of the recommendation of the Establishment Committee is perfectly legal. 8. In Ext.P7, the Executive Committee was of the view that there are no provision in the service rules or under the pre-UGC State Schemes, Statutes or the 1986/1996 UGC Schemes to reckon such non-regular service rendered as Research Associate on consolidated remuneration for any service benefit. It was also found that the previous service on temporary basis has not yet been considered in the University for Career Advancement Promotion. 9. Evidently, there is no provision under the 1986 or 1996 U.G.C. Scheme to reckon the non regular service as Research Associate for any benefit. It cannot be disputed that the petitioner was working only on consolidated pay and not on a scale of pay. The appointment as Assistant Professor itself cannot be said to be illegal for any reason, as contended by the petitioner. In Ext.P5, the University has considered various aspects and found that the petitioner could be absorbed as Assistant Professor, in the light of the decision of this Court. Therefore, such conferment of a benefit wpc 35256/2009 6 of absorption was evidently after considering the tenure of short term appointments earlier made by the University. Even though learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner should have been appointed as Associate Professor, evidently, Assistant Professor is the entry post. Nobody can be directly appointed in a promotion post of Associate Professor and the appointment as a Research Associate on various capacities for different periods will not be a substitute for the appointment or promotion as Associate Professor. Therefore, the claim that the petitioner ought to have been appointed initially as Associate Professor instead of Assistant Professor as per Ext.P5, cannot be accepted at all. 10. Evidently, the University has considered various aspect while passing Ext.P7. In the absence of any rule or UGC Scheme to reckon the non regular service as Research Associate on consolidated remuneration for any service benefits, the petitioner cannot succeed in this writ petition. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/