Chitralekha M. v State of Kerala and Others

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: A.M. Shaffique
Gopinath P.
Judgment Date: 2020-06-18
Court Decision / Holding: OP(KAT) No.176/2020 dismissed.
Final Disposition: Dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Chitralekha M.

Respondents

State of Kerala
Director of Collegiate Education
Dr. K.K. Suma

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Joshi N. Thomas
• Aleena Jolly

Counsels for Respondents

• T. Rajasekharan Nair
• Sr. G.P.

Case Synopsis & Summary

Chitralekha M. filed this Original Petition (OP(KAT) No.176/2020) challenging the Kerala Administrative Tribunal’s order dated 2 March 2020 in OA (EKM) No.1122/2019, which promoted Dr. K.K. Suma from Deputy Director of Collegiate Education, Thrissur, to Additional Director. The petitioner contends that she and the 3rd respondent are in the same feeder cadre and that seniority should govern promotions; she asserts that she was appointed as Lecturer in Mathematics on 19 August 1988, joined duty on 1 September 1988, was placed in the senior scale in 1999, and in the Selection Grade in 2006, ultimately redesignated as Associate Professor at Government Central Polytechnic, Vattiyoorkavu, before becoming Principal in 2015. The 3rd respondent, who had a Ph.D. as per UGC Regulations, was promoted as Principal (Special Grade) and posted to Government College, Kattappana, and later to Deputy Director. The state adopted UGC Regulations, 2010, in 2010, and the Full Bench of this Court held in 2016 that appointments made contrary to UGC Regulations are illegal; the Supreme Court in 2018 held the Full Bench judgment to be effective from 23 February 2016. The Tribunal found that the 3rd respondent’s earlier promotion occurred before the petitioner’s and that the DPC for the petitioner’s promotion occurred much later; Accordingly, the petitioner’s challenge failed and the OP was dismissed. The High Court accordingly dismissed the petition.

Provisions of Law Cited

UGC Regulations, 2010

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Appointments made in contravention of UGC Regulations 2010 are illegal.
The Full Bench judgment in Radhakrishnan Pillai v. Travancore Devaswom Board is binding on cases filed before the High Court, with the Supreme Court later clarifying its effect from 23 February 2016.
The Apex Court's order dated 17 July 2018 in SLP Nos. 18938-18942/2017 affirmed the Full Bench judgment's applicability from 23/02/2016.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that she is senior to the 3rd respondent, and thus should have been promoted as Additional Director rather than the 3rd respondent. She highlights her long service, earlier placements, and compliance with qualifications under UGC Regulations, 2010, arguing that seniority must govern promotions and that the seniority list should be recast. She relies on the Full Bench decision in Radhakrishnan Pillai to challenge the legality of the 3rd respondent’s appointment and subsequent promotions.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that the 3rd respondent was legally promoted as Principal (Special Grade) with qualifications under UGC Regulations, and that her probation and initial postings, including Deputy Director, occurred before the petitioner’s. They argue the government orders implementing UGC standards and the DPC process justify the promotions, and that the petitioner’s seniority cannot override established, lawfully-conferred promotions.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Radhakrishnan Pillai v. Travancore Devaswom Board	2016 (2) KLT 245 (FB)	Positive	Full Bench held appointments in contravention of UGC Regulations 2010 illegal; upheld by Supreme Court (2018) with effect from 23/02/2016.
Supreme Court order in SLP Nos. 18938-18942/2017	SLP Nos. 18938-18942/2017	Positive	Apex Court affirmed the Full Bench judgment, applying it to cases filed before the High Court, effective from 23/02/2016.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.** **THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE 2020 / 28TH JYAISHTA, 1942** **OP(KAT).No.176 OF 2020** **AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA (EKM) 1122/2019 DATED 02-03-2020 OF KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** ## **PETITIONER/APPLICANT:** **CHITRALEKHA.M., AGED 56 YEARS W/O. MURALI, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION KOZHIKODE, PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT PRIYADARSHINI NATTAKKU THAZHE, BADAGARA MOB. 9495567050. BY ADVS. SRI.JOSHI N.THOMAS KUM.ALEENA JOLLY** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN OA:** |**1**|**STATE OF KERALA**| |---|---| ||**REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HIGHER**| ||**EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,**| ||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. KERALA.**| |**2**|**DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,**| ||**VIKAS BHAVAN, M.G. ROAD,**| ||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 003. KERALA**| |**3**|**DR.K.K. SUMA,**| ||**ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,**| ||**VIKAS BHAVAN, M.G. ROAD,**| ||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 003, KERALA.**| **SRI. T. RAJASEKHARAN NAIR -SR. G.P.** **THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12-06-2020, THE COURT ON 18-06-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** OP(KAT) No.176/2020 -:2:- ## **J U D G M E N T** Dated this the 18[th] day of June, 2020 ## _**Shaffique, J.**_ This Original Petition is filed challenging order dated 2/3/2020 in OA (Ekm) No.1122/2019 of Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram. The Original Application was filed by the petitioner _inter alia_ seeking to set aside Annexure A1 order dated 7/6/2019 issued as per GO(Ordinary) No.921/2019. By the impugned order, Dr.K.K.Suma who was working as Deputy Director, Collegiate Education, Thrissur has been promoted as Additional Director. 2. The contention urged by the petitioner was that the petitioner was having seniority over Dr.K.K.Suma (3[rd] respondent). According to the petitioner, she was appointed as Lecturer in Mathematics on 19/8/1988 through a special recruitment and she joined duty on 1/9/1988. She was placed in the senior scale as per order dated 3/11/1999 and thereafter placed in the Selection Grade as per order dated 6/2/2006. She was redesignated as Associate Professor at Government Central Polytechnic, OP(KAT) No.176/2020 -:3:- Vattiyoorkavu as per order dated 27/3/2010. In the meantime, UGC Regulations of the year 2010 prescribing minimum qualification for the appointment of teachers and other academic staff came to be published as per UGC letter dated 30/6/2010. The State Government adopted UGC Regulations on 10/12/2010 w.e.f. 18/10/2010. Petitioner was promoted as Principal on 29/5/2015 and she joined Government college, Madappally on 8/6/2015. In the meantime, 3[rd] respondent Dr.K.K.Suma, was also promoted as Principal and posted at Government College, Kattappana. In the meantime, applicability of the UGC Regulations came up for consideration before a Full Bench of this Court and the Full Bench by judgment dated 23/2/2016 in _**Radhakrishnan Pillai v. Travancore Devaswom Board**_ [2016 (2) KLT 245 (FB)] declared that the appointments made in contravention of UGC Regulations 2010 are illegal. In the meantime, a seniority list came to be published by the Director of Collegiate Education on 8/9/2016 by which the petitioner was shown as senior to Dr.K.K.Suma. The judgment in _**Radhakrishnan Pillai's case**_ (supra) was challenged by the Government by filing Special Leave Petition. The Apex Court by OP(KAT) No.176/2020 -:4:- order dated 17/7/2018 while upholding the view taken by the Full Bench of this Court held that the Full Bench judgment shall be effective from 23/2/2016. It was also stated that the law laid down by the Full Bench applies to those cases which have been filed before the High Court. According to the petitioner, herself and the 3[rd] respondent were appointed without complying with the procedure laid down by the UGC Regulations, 2010. Subsequently, her juniors were promoted as Deputy Director which included the 3[rd] respondent. She challenged the said order dated 13/10/2017 before the Tribunal by filing OA (Ekm) No.282/2019. The learned Government Pleader on instructions submitted that the Government was intending to promote the applicant as Special Grade Principal and thereafter Deputy Director of Collegiate Education. The Original application was disposed of on 25/2/2019 recording the aforesaid submission. The applicant was appointed as Special Grade Principal at Brunnen College, Thalassery as per order dated 29/4/2019. She was not promoted as Deputy Director. A contempt case was filed and when the same came up for admission, learned Government Pleader submitted that the applicant was granted provisional OP(KAT) No.176/2020 -:5:- promotion based on which the contempt petition was closed. According to the petitioner, despite all the above, the seniority list was not recasted. It is her contention that promotion to the post of Principal was valid in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court. In so far as the petitioner is senior to the 3[rd] respondent, she should have been promoted as Additional Director of Collegiate Education and therefore according to her, the promotion of the 3[rd] respondent is illegal. 3. A reply statement was filed by the 1[st] respondent _inter alia_ stating that after the disposal of Special Leave Petition, an executive order was issued on 19/3/2017 amending the qualifications of Principal in accordance with UGC Regulations. The probation of the petitioner in the cadre of Principal could not be declared since she did not have the qualification prescribed by UGC for the post of Principal. The 3[rd] respondent was given promotion as Principal( Special Grade) since she was qualified for the post of Principal in tune with the UGC Regulations. It is stated that the 3[rd] respondent joined the post of Principal (Special Grade) and Deputy Director before the applicant which determined the claim of the 3[rd] respondent to be promoted to the OP(KAT) No.176/2020 -:6:- post of Deputy Director and Additional Director respectively. 4. The Tribunal on a consideration of the factual and legal aspects involved in the matter came to a finding that since the 3[rd] respondent was having Ph.D as per UGC Regulations, her probation was declared in the cadre of Principal much earlier than that of the applicant. 3[rd] respondent was therefore included by the DPC in the select list for promotion to the post of Principal (Special Grade) and was promoted to that post on 18/7/2017 almost one year before the judgment of the Apex Court. As far as the applicant is concerned, DPC for her promotion could be convened only after her completion of probation in the feeder category of Principal/Special Grade and the DPC was convened only on 8/4/2019 and thereafter she was promoted to the post of Deputy Director. The 3[rd] respondent's appointment to the post of Deputy Director of Collegiate Education was provisionally ordered on 13/10/2017 which has been regularized by Government Order dated 01/02/2018 whereas the petitioner was not promoted as Deputy Director and she was granted provisional promotion only on 12/6/2019. 5. Taking into consideration all these facts, it is rather OP(KAT) No.176/2020 -:7:- clear that the petitioner could not have aspired for the post of Additional Director overlooking the 3[rd] respondent. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the seniority position has to be maintained, it is rather clear that the 3[rd] respondent was promoted to the post of Principal and her probation was declared much earlier to the date on which the petitioner's probation was declared. The 3[rd] respondent was given the posting of Deputy Director much earlier to that of the petitioner. Under such circumstances, she cannot claim that she is entitled to be promoted to the post of Additional Director overlooking the seniority of the 3[rd] respondent in that cadre. 6. Under such circumstances, we do not find any error being committed by the Tribunal in rejecting the claim of the petitioner. OP(KAT) is therefore dismissed. ## **Sd/-** ## **A.M.SHAFFIQUE** **JUDGE Sd/-** **GOPINATH P.** **JUDGE** Rp OP(KAT) No.176/2020 -:8:- ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 PHOTOCOPY OF O.A. 1122/2019 ALONG WITH ANNEUXRRES. EXHIBIT P1 (A-1) TRUE COPY OF GO (ORDINARY) NO. 921/2019/HR.EDN., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 07-06-2019. EXHIBIT P1 (A-2) TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 14.06.2019 OF THE APPLICANT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P1 (A-3) TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 14.06.2019 OF THE APPLICANT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P1(A-4) TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. ESTT A- 2/39927/87 COLL. EDN DATED 19.08.1988 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P1 (A-5) TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. U.G.C CELL (III) 25174/99 DATED 03.11.99 ISSUED BY THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION AS CONVENOR SCREENING AND SELECTION COMMITTEE. EXHIBIT P1 (A-6) TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. U.G.C CELL-III / 41328/2005/COL.EDN DATED 06.0.22016 ISSUED BY THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION AS CONVENER SCREENING AND SELECTION COMMITTEE. EXHIBIT P1 (A-7) TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. GO(P) NO. 392/10/H.EDN., DATED 10/12/2016 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P1 (A-8) TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. GO(P) NO. 1244/2015/HG.EDN., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DAED 29.05.2013.** OP(KAT) No.176/2020 ## -:9:- |**EXHIBIT P1**|**(A-9)**|**TRUE** **COPY** **OF** **PROCEEDINGS** **NO.**| |---|---|---| |||**BI/18228/15(1) HR.EDN DATED 08.09.2016**| |||**ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.**| |**EXHIBIT P1**|**(A-10)**|**TRUE COPY OF ORDER GO(P) NO.**| |||**10/2017/H.EDN. DATED THIRUVANANTHAPURAM**| |||**09.03.2017.**| |**EXHIBIT P1**|**(A-11)**|**TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 17.07.2018 IN**| |||**SLP 18938-18942/2017 OF THE HONBLE**| |||**SUPREME COURT OF INDIA.**| |**EXHIBIT P1**|**(A-12)**|**TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. GO (RT) NO.**| |||**1348/2017** **/H.EDN.** **DATED**| |||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 18.07.2017.**| |**EXHIBIT P1**|**(A-13)**|**TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. GO (RT) NO.**| |||**1878/2017** **/H.EDN.** **DATED**| |||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 13.10.2017**| |**EXHIBIT P1**|**(A-14)**|**TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 25.02.2019 IN**| |||**OA(EKM) 282/2019 OF THE KERALA**| |||**ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ERNAKULAM BENCH.**| |**EXHIBIT P1**|**(A-15)**|**TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 17.06.2019 IN**| |||**CONTEMPT PET (E) 69/2019 OF THE KAT,**| |||**ERNAKULAM BENCH.**| |**EXHIBIT P1**|**(A-16)**|**TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. GO (RT) NO.**| |||**942/2017** **/H.EDN.** **DATED**| |||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 24.05.2017.**| |**EXHIBIT P1**|**(A-17)**|**TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 1.20.2018 IN**| |||**OA(EKM) 1297/2016 OF THE KAT ERNAKULAM**| |||**BENCH.**| |**EXHIBIT P2**||**PHOTOCOPY OF REPLY DATED 17.02.2020**| |||**FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.**| |**EXHIBIT P3**||**PHOTO** **COPY** **OF** **REJOINDER** **DATED**| |||**31.01.2020 BY THE PETITIONER.**| |**EXHIBIT P4**||**PHOTOCOPY OF REPLY DATED 01.01.2020 AND**| |||**PRESENTED ON 4,02,2020 BY THE 3RF**| |||**RESPONDENT.**| ## OP(KAT) No.176/2020 -:10:- **EXHIBIT P5 PHOTO COPY OF ORDER DATED 02.08.2020 IN OA 1122/2019 OF THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ERNAKULAM BENCH.**