Dr. L. Natarajan v. Registrar, Kerala Agricultural University and Comptroller, Kerala Agricultural University

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** ## **WEDNESDAY, THE 14[TH] DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022 / 23RD BHADRA, 1944** ## **WP(C) NO.1023 OF 2015** ## **PETITIONER:** DR.L.NATARAJAN AGED 70 YEARS RETIRED PROFESSOR,COLLEGE OF HORTICULTURE,VELLANIKKARA,THRISSUR, RESIDING AT PLOT NO.43,HOUSE 36, IIIRD,KUMARAN NAGAR,LAWSPET,PUDUCHERY 605 008 BY ADVS. SRI.P.V.JAYACHANDRAN SRI.NIDHI BALACHANDRAN SRI.E.B.SHIVANANDAN ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 THE REGISTRAR KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY,KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY POST,VELLANIKKARA,TRISSUR 680 654 2 THE COMPROLLET KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY,KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY POST,VELLANIKKARA,TRISSUR 680 654 BY ADV SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA,SC,KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY SRI.ROBSON PAUL -SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.09.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **WP(C) NO. 1023 OF 2015** **2** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner, who is a voluntarily retired Professor from the College of Horticulture, under the Kerala Agricultural University (‘University’ for short), has approached this Court impugning Exts.P4 and P5 orders of the said University, whereby, the promotion to the post of Professor, granted to him as per Ext.P1 with effect from 19.01.1990 and his induction into the 1986 Scheme of the University Grants Commission (UGC) had been reviewed and the said benefits declined. 2. The petitioner asserts that both Exts.P4 and P5 have been issued without proper application of mind and in blatant disregard to Ext.P3 Government Order; and thus prays that they be set aside and the University be directed to allow him all benefits pursuant to Ext.P1, without any further delay. 3. Sri.P.V.Jayachandran – learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, further explained that the sole reason in Exts.P4 and P5, for cancelling Ext.P1 promotion to his client, is that he did not have the requisite qualifying service as on 19.01.1990. He **WP(C) NO. 1023 OF 2015** **3** submitted that this date is irrelevant because Ext.P3 Government Order would render it limpid that it has been extended until 26.7.1998 and he pointed out to Paragraph 6 of the said order in substantiation. He then argued that the reasoning in Exts.P4 and P5, that his client is not eligible to the counting of the period when he was on Post Doctoral training as eligible service, is also untenable, in view of Paragraph 2 of Ext.P3. He thus reiteratingly prayed that the reliefs sought for in this writ petition be granted to his client. 4. Sri.Robson Paul – learned Standing Counsel for the University, on the other hand, submitted that Ext.P3 makes it luculent that leave for the purpose of higher studies will be eligible to be treated as qualifying service only in the case of a P.G. Course or Ph.D. He submitted that, however, since the petitioner availed leave for three years for Post Doctoral training, the University was well within its powers to have reviewed his promotion, as was originally given to him through Ext.P1. He then added that, in any event, Ext.P3 order makes it indubitable **WP(C) NO. 1023 OF 2015** **4** that the relevant cut-off-date is 19.01.1990 and that since the petitioner did not have the necessary qualifying service as on that date, he is not entitled to any benefit as was granted to him erroneously through Ext.P1. He thus prayed that this writ petition be dismissed. 5. I have considered the afore submissions and have also examined the various materials available on record, particularly Exts.P3 and P5. 6. _Prima facie_ , on a reading of Ext.P5, the cut-off-date mentioned in Exts.P4 and P5 impugned orders appears to have been extended until 26.07.1998. This is evident from Paragraph 6 of the said order, but I see that neither Ext.P4 nor Ext.P5 has considered this aspect at all. That apart, as rightly argued by Sri.P.V.Jayachandran, Paragraph 2 of Ext.P3 order allows a person who had availed Leave Without Allowances for higher studies to have the said period reckoned for qualifying service. There is no inhibition in the said paragraph with respect to Post Doctoral training, though it has not been so specified therein. **WP(C) NO. 1023 OF 2015** **5** However, this aspect has also not been considered in Exts.P4 and P5, in any manner whatsoever. 7. In the afore circumstances, I am certain that the entire matter will require to be considered by the University, especially taking note of paragraphs 2 and 6 of Ext.P3 Government Order. Resultantly, I allow this writ petition and set aside Exts.P4 and P5; with a consequential direction to the competent Authority of the University to rehear the petitioner and take a decision on his claim, adverting to paragraphs 2 and 6 of Ext.P3 Government Order, particularly the assertion of the petitioner that even Post Doctoral training is eligible to be construed as qualifying service and that the cut-off-date has been extended until 26.07.1998, within which time he had obtained the necessary period of service. Alternatively, if, for any reason, the University is to find against the petitioner on the afore counts, then it shall also consider whether the petitioner is entitled to be fitted into the “1986 UGC Scheme”, and the resultant opinion shall be reflected **WP(C) NO. 1023 OF 2015** **6** in the order to be issued in terms of these directions. After I dictated this part of the judgment, Sri.P.V.Jayachandran – learned counsel for the petitioner, pointed out that Ext.P1 order takes into account the “Assessment Promotion” given to his client prior to the 1986 UGC Scheme. He asserted out that a learned Judge of this Court has, in _**K.P.Jagan Mohan v. State of Kerala and Others [W.P(C)No.194 of 2010],**_ made it clear that such promotions cannot be disturbed, as has been done in the case of his client through Exts.P4 and P5 herein. I must say that I find substantial force in the afore submissions of Sri.P.V.Jayachandran because, going by the judgment in _**K.P.Jagan Mohan (Supra),**_ a learned Judge has already taken the view that Assessment Promotions prior to the implementation of “1986 UGC Scheme” cannot be disturbed. Obviously, therefore, when the afore exercise is completed, only that portion of Ext.P1 will be sought to be reviewed to the extent to which the petitioner’s qualifying service has been found to be **WP(C) NO. 1023 OF 2015** **7** incomplete or that he did not have necessary qualifications upto the cut-off-date; while the promotion granted prior to 1986, being the year in which the UGC Scheme was implemented, will not be disturbed. **Sd/DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE** ## ANB ## **WP(C) NO. 1023 OF 2015** ## **8** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1023/2015** PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER G.A/C2/23346/99(III) DATED 8-7-99 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(P) NO 171/99/H.EDN DATED 21-12-1999 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER GO(MS) NO 32/07/AD DATED 19-3-2007 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO GA/C2/23346/99/223 DATED 15-09-2009 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO GA/C2/27560/2014 DATED 23-12-2014