Case: P. GOPINATHAN PILLAI Vs. UNIVERSITY OF KERALA &amp; ORS

2. The brief facts of the case for deciding this appeal are:The appellant was appointed as Project Officer in the Centre for Adult Continuing Education and Extension (hereinafter referred to as CACEE). The appellant joined at the CACEE with effect from 26.12.1989. By letter dated 01.02.1990 of the Deputy Registrar of the University of Kerala, University accorded sanction to the appointment of the appellant as Project Officer against the post at the CACEE. The University of Kerala has also implemented the University Grants Commission (UGC) scale of pay to the CACEE staff. The appellant was also given the UGC pay scale. The Centre has issued various certificates to the appellant that he has been teaching various courses like the Post Graduate Diploma etc. On 07.12.2012, the appellant was promoted as Assistant Director in the CACEE. The University Grants Commission revised the scale of pay of the CACEE at par i.e. Director, Assistant Director and Project Officer corresponding to the pay scale of Associate Professor, Assistant Professor, Reader, Lecturer. Writ Petition (C) No.12179 of 2016 was filed by the appellant before the High Court of Kerala seeking a declaration that the appellant is a Teacher of the University of Kerala and entitled to continue in service upto the age of 60 years3. The appellants case was that he cannot be retired at the age of 56 years. The appellant in his writ petition relied on earlier judgments of the Kerala High Court including judgment delivered by the High Court with regard to the post of Director and Assistant Director of CACEE itself. The appellant also filed certificates issued by the Centre to the appellant that he while working in the Centre has been associated with Teaching Research Extension and other activities. When the writ petition came for consideration before a learned Single Judge, noticing a conflict between two judgments i.e. in (1) W.A. 1099 of 1988 and (2) W.A. 180 of 1992, the learned Single Judge referred the matter to be heard by a Division Bench4. The case of the appellant was contested by the University. The Division Bench after scanning the two judgments with regard to which conflict was noticed, observed that the said judgments were delivered in the peculiar facts and circumstances arising in each case and there was no justification for reference. The Division Bench proceeded to consider the merits of the controversy and held that the appellant is not a Teacher of the University and is not entitled to continue till the age of 60 years. The writ petition was consequently dismissed. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Division Bench, this appeal has filed by the appellant.

Reasoning:
18. The judgment of the High Court does not mention any details of the establishment, nature and organisation of the Centre i.e. CACEE19. Although rejoinder-affidavit has been filed by the appellant to the above counter-affidavit of the University but neither there is any reply to the counter-affidavit nor details mentioned in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the counter-affidavit regarding nature of the establishment of the Centre has been refuted. We, thus, proceed to rely on the pleadings made in the counter-affidavit regarding the establishment and the nature of the Centre20. The Centre i.e. CACEE came to be established on temporary basis as planned Scheme established by the Government of India for the purpose of eradicating illiteracy. The University Grants Commission also funded the Centre and as pleaded in the counter- affidavit after 31.03.1997 no Agency having come forward to sponsor the Scheme the Syndicate of the University resolved to restructure CACEE as a Self- Supporting Centre. The University has undertaken to render all the Administrative work of CACEE26. The Centre is not a College within the meaning of Section 2(7) since as per the pleadings of the University, Centre is neither maintained nor affiliated to the University. There are no materials on record also to indicate that the Centre is an institution recognised by the University within the meaning of Section 2(19). It is true that the Centre is being run as a Centre under the administrative control of the University. The definition of Teacher of University in Section 2(28) also refers to a person employed as Teacher in any institution maintained by the University. The High Court in the impugned judgment has held that the appellant was never employed as Teacher hence he is not covered by Section 2(28). From the pleadings on the record and the materials which are brought on the record it is apparent that the appellant is not covered by definition of Teacher or the Teacher of the University under Section 2(27) and 2(28) of the Kerala University Act, 1974. When the appellant does not fulfil the requirement of definition of Teacher or Teacher of University, he cannot claim applicability of Statute 10 of Chapter 3 of the StatutesEven if it is assumed that the appellant is imparting instruction in different courses in the Centre that itself cannot make the appellant Teacher within the meaning of Section 2(27) and 2(28). The appellant having never been appointed as Teacher he is not covered by the definition of Teacher of the University32. Learned Single Judge although noted the distinguishing feature of case of Dr. Pillai that he had lien in the Department of Education, but without adverting to the distinguish facts of Division Bench judgment and without adverting as to how the writ petitioner was a Teacher within the meaning of Kerala University Act, the writ petition was allowed. The above judgment of the learned Single Judge having mechanically followed the Division Bench judgment in W.A.No.180 of 1992 cannot come to the rescue of the appellantThe said case has no relevance in the facts of the present case since the post of Students Services was admittedly post within the University whereas the none of the posts in Centre is included in the Ordinances hence the said case is clearly distinguishableThe said judgment has no bearing in the present case since admittedly the appellant in the said case was working in the University as Director of Physical Education38. As per the Government letter Centre has been merged with Institute of Distance Education, what are the consequences of merger of Centre with Institute of Distance Education have neither been explained by the appellant nor there are any material to come to the conclusion that by such merger the Centre shall become Centre maintained by the University. The above letter of the Government also supports our conclusion that Centre is not maintained by the University and it is Self-Financing Centre. The said letter also in no manner supports the case of the appellant as the claim of the appellant as raised in this appeal.