Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

JOSE K.J. LECTURER SENIOR GRADE versus STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


JOSE K.J. LECTURER SENIOR GRADE v. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE - WP(C) No. 24203 of 2005(F) [2006] RD-KL 1991 (28 November 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 24203 of 2005(F)

1. JOSE K.J. LECTURER SENIOR GRADE,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent

2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE

3. THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, REPRESENT

4. THE PRINCIPAL, PAVANATMA COLLEGE,

For Petitioner :SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN

For Respondent :SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH

Dated :28/11/2006

O R D E R

K.M.JOSEPH, J.

W.P.(C).No.24203 OF 2005

Dated this the 28th day of November,2006.



JUDGMENT

Case of the petitioner is as follows: Petitioner was appointed in a new post which falls within the U.G.C. Scheme in terms of the then existing Rules and Government orders, on sanctioning of a new course B.Sc. Chemistry. He was selected to the post of Lecturer under the U.G.C. Scheme and his appointment was approved by Ext.P1 order.

2. On completion of five years he became eligible for being placed as Lecturer Senior Scale in terms of the Government order and he was promoted as Lecturer Senior Scale with effect from 02-09-2001 vide Ext.P2. On the approval of the appointment of the petitioner by the University, his service book along with relevant documents were submitted before the Deputy Director for his verification. Thereupon Deputy Director issued Ext.P4 communication rejecting the approval of the promotion of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the reason stated in Ext.P4 WPC No.24203/05 2 is wholly untenable. Ext.P6 is the circular issued by the Government. In Ext.P6 it is clarified that those who were appointed since 01-04-1990 against Pre-Degree vacancies and are continuing without any workload, and those who are newly appointed against the posts required for the new courses that have been started with specific direction that " the expenditure will not exceed the budget allotment" or without additional financial commitment", will not be eligible for placements in the Senior Scale and Selection grade under the career advancement scheme. According to the petitioner the above circular has no application in his case as he was not appointed as Pre Degree Lecturer and not possessed the qualification for being appointed as Junior Lecturer.

3. University and the state has filed their counter affidavits.

4. In the counter affidavit filed by the University, it is inter- alia stated as follows: The Principal, Pavanatma College, Murickassery has issued a certificate that the petitioner does not come under the purview of the Government circular No.28796/D1/03/H.Edn. dated 9-2-2004 since he does not belong to any of the following categories viz.(i) those appointed since 1-4-1990 against Pre-degree vacancies and continuing without any workload and (ii) those who are newly appointed against the post required for the Courses that have been started in the College WPC No.24203/05 3 with a specific decision that the expenditure will not exceed the budget allotment or without additional financial commitment. The University had, accordingly, approved the Senior Scale promotion of the petitioner. The University had approved the Senior Scale promotion of the petitioner provisionally after obtaining a written undertaking to undergo the screening process as and when the Statutory Screening/Selection Committee is constituted."

5. I feel that it is for the Deputy Director to raise his objections to the grant of approval by the University before the University and it is for the University to consider the matter in the light of the objections. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of as follows: The second respondent shall place his objections to the grant of approval as done in Ext.P3 before the third respondent within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Upon receipt of the same, third respondent shall meticulously consider each and every objection of the second respondent and pass a reasoned order. It shall be communicated to the petitioner and also the second respondent. If the decision taken by the third respondent is reiterating the approval granted to the petitioner as Ext.P3, second respondent shall be bound by the decision of this court in Cherian Mathew v. Principal, S.B.College, Changanassery (1998(2) KLT 144) and in WPC No.24203/05 4 Jaya Prasad v. State of Kerala and another (2003 (2) KLJ 189) and all monetary benefits due to the petitioner will be disbursed without any further delay. Writ petition is disposed of as above. K.M.JOSEPH.

JUDGE.

sv. WPC No.24203/05 5


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.