High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeDisposed of

Dr. Laila T. Abraham v. Mahatma Gandhi University and Others

Case / Petition Number:W.P.(C) No.13274 of 2018

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
Judgment Date
2018-08-16
Court Decision / Holding
The petitioner shall be considered for appointment as Librarian in Stage V without delay, at any rate within a period of one month.
Final Disposition
Disposed of

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Dr. Laila T. Abraham w/o Babu N. Joseph, Deputy Librarian-in-Charge (University), Mahatma Gandhi University, Priyadarshini Hills, Kottayam-686 560

Respondents

  • MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, represented by its Registrar, Priyadarshini Hills P.O, Kottayam-686560
  • Vice-Chancellor, Mahatma Gandhi University, Priyadarshini Hills P.O, Kottayam-686560
  • The Syndicate of Mahatma Gandhi University, represented by its Chairman, Priyadarshini Hills P.O, Kottayam-686560
  • Registrar, Mahatma Gandhi University, Priyadarshini Hills P.O, Kottayam-686560
  • State of Kerala, represented by Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram-695001

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Dr. George Abraham

Counsels for Respondents

  • • S. Asok M. Cherian, Senior Counsel, M.G. University
  • • S. Gopinath an, Senior Government Pleader

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petition, filed by Dr. Laila T. Abraham, Deputy Librarian-in-Charge at Mahatma Gandhi University, challenges the Syndicate’s reference to the Government for clarification on eligibility under the UGC Regulations for appointment to the post of Librarian. The key issue is the interpretation of clause 6.4(iii) of the UGC Regulations: “Deputy Librarian completing service of three years in the AGP of Rs.9,000 and otherwise eligible as per the API scoring system and PBAS methodology developed in these Regulations, with a Ph.D qualification shall also be eligible to be considered for appointment to the post of Librarian through open recruitment.” Two qualifications are identified: (i) experience as Deputy Librarian and (ii) Ph.D. The University contends that the three years’ Deputy Librarian experience must be after acquiring Ph.D; hence the petitioner’s Ph.D (2017) and prior Deputy Librarian service would not meet the criterion. The petitioner argues that the clause simply requires both: Deputy Librarian experience and Ph.D; it does not mandate the three years of experience after Ph.D. The court, relying on A.K. Raghumani Singh v. Gopal Chandra Nath and other authorities, interprets “with” as a conjunction, not implying a post-Ph.D period. It notes that Ph.D is desirable, not mandatory for direct recruitment, and that 13 years’ experience as Deputy Librarian suffices. The court directs consideration of the petitioner for Stage V Librarian within a month, disposing the petition accordingly.

Provisions of Law Cited

UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff of the Universities and Colleges, 2010 (Exhibit P14); Clause 6.4(iii)Kerala University Act, 1974Rule 10(ab) of Part II KS&SSRKerala University First Statutes, 1977, Statute 10

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Plain meaning interpretation of the conjunction 'with' (accompanied by)
  • Plain reading of statutory language
  • Dependency on UGC Regulations not to read post-Ph.D restriction into 'three years' phrase

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that clause 6.4(iii) should be read as requiring that the Deputy Librarian possess both a Ph.D and three years of Deputy Librarian experience, but without insisting that the three years’ experience occur after Ph.D. Obtaining a Ph.D is treated as an essential qualification along with the Deputy Librarian experience; Ph.D is not mandated for direct recruitment to the Librarian post, which conventionally requires 13 years of Deputy Librarian experience. The clause is interpreted in its plain sense to mean eligibility for promotion when the consecutive qualifications exist, and the language does not specify a post-Ph.D experiential period. The petitioner seeks consideration for Stage V Librarian without undue delay.

Contentions of Respondents

The University argues that the three years of Deputy Librarian experience must be after acquiring Ph.D, i.e., Deputy Librarian with Ph.D and three years post-Ph.D experience is required for eligibility. It relies on the plain language of clause 6.4(iii) and on authorities like A.K. Raghu mani Singh; it contends that the UGC Regulations permit three years’ experience after Ph.D. The Respondents also cite Basheer v. Saiful Islam and Rabi v. State of Kerala to illustrate the prevailing interpretation in state service rules, but contend that the UGC Regulations govern University postings and consistency with qualification norms.”},

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
A.K. Raghumani Singh v. Gopal Chandra Nath and others(2000) 4 SCC 30PositiveUsed to interpret the conjunctive phrase 'with' in the eligibility clause, supporting a plain-language reading that does not require subsequent post-Ph.D experience.
Basheer v. Saiful Islam2014 (4) KLT 521DistinguishedCited for its discussion on post-qualification experience in KS&SSR context; the present judgment departs from it in interpreting UGC Regulations.
Rabi v. State of Kerala2007 (4) KLT 335Mentioned OnlyCited for context on post-qualification teaching/experience norms; not controlling in the UGC-qualification framework.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Dr. Laila T. Abraham v. Mahatma Gandhi University and Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

PETITIONER: DR.LAILA T.ABRAHAM W/O.BABU N.JOSEPH, DEPUTY LIBRARIAN-IN-CHARGE (UNIVERSITY), MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM - 686 560. BY ADV.DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM RESPONDENTS: 1. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR,PRIYADARSHINI HILLS P.O, KOTTAYAM-686560. - 2 VICE-CHANCELLOR, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY,PRIYADARSHINI HILLS P.O, KOTTAYAM-686560. - 3 THE SYNDICATE OF MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN,PRIYADARSHINI HILLS P.O, KOTTAYAM-686560. - 4 REGISTRAR, - MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY,PRIYADARSHINI HILLS P.O, KOTTAYAM-686560. - 5 STATE OF KERALA, - REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. R1-R4 BY ADV. SRI.ASOK M. CHERIAN, SC, M.G. UNIVERSITY R5 BY SRI.S.GOPINATHAN, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16-08-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 13274 of 2018 (H) APPENDIX ## PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: - EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE UNIVERSITY DATED 17.12.1990 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE UNIVERSITY DATED 04.06.1994.E EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.06.2008 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12.05.2010 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY TO THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE FIXATION OF PAY GRANTED TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY TO THE PETITIONER PROMOTING HER AS THE DY.LIBRARIAN OF THE UNIVERSITY EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF GOVERNMENT ORDER,GO(P)NO.582/10/H.EDN.DATED 27.03.2010. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF APPENDIX-III ATTACHED TO THE UGC REGULATION. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE DEGREE OF PH.D. EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE INTERNAL QUALITY ASSURANCE CELL DATED 27.11.2017. EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE SELECTION COMMITTEE DATED 30.01.2018. EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE SYNDICATE MEETING HELD ON 03.02.2018 EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE SYNDICATE AT THE MEETING HELD ON 24.03.2018. - EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE U.G.C REGULATIONS ON MINIMUM QUALIFICATION FOR APPOINTMENT OF TEACHERS AND OTHER ACADEMIC STAFF OF THE UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES 2010. - EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY DATED 16/5/2018. - EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF HYDERABAD DATED 11/7/2017. - EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 16/2/18 IS ISSUED BY ALAGAPPA UNIVERSITY. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. // True Copy // P.S to Judge. smp ## **A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.** ------------------------------------ ## W.P. (C) No.13274 of 2018 ------------------------------------ ## Dated this the 16[th] day of August, 2018 ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioner, a Deputy Librarian, promoted in the year 2008 acquired Ph.d in the year 2017. The petitioner was considered for promotion as Librarian in the University (Stage V) under the Career Advancement Scheme and selected to the post. However, the Syndicate, noting that the petitioner does not have experience of three years after acquiring Ph.d, referred the matter to the Government for clarification. The petitioner, challenging the decision of the Syndicate, has approached this Court. The issue in the writ petition revolved around interpretation of the relevant provisions of the UGC Scheme. It is appropriate to refer the relevant clause, namely, clause 6.4(iii) which reads thus: “(iii)Deputy Librarian completing service of three years in the AGP of Rs.9,000 and otherwise eligible as per the API scoring system and PBAS methodology developed in these **W.P.(C) No.13274/2018** **2** Regulations, with a Ph.D qualification shall also be eligible to be considered for appointment to the post of Librarian through open recruitment”. There are two essential qualifications required; i) experience as Deputy Librarian and ii) Ph.D. 2. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the University submits that the petitioner's service of three years as Deputy Librarian will have to be after acquiring Ph.D qualification and then alone the petitioner can be considered as eligible. 3. The question that arises for consideration is whether the 'experience' as referred in the clause is one 'after acquiring Ph.D qualification' or not. It is more of an interpretation of the plain language of the provisions as above and nothing else. Nowhere it is stated that the qualification of experience must be 'after acquiring Ph.D'. The clause simply says 'experience of three years in the post of Deputy Librarian with Ph.D qualification'. That means, before being considered for promotion, the Deputy Librarian must acquire Ph.D qualification. This is more so by the reason that for direct recruitment, there is no insistence of Ph.D qualification in the **W.P.(C) No.13274/2018** **3** post of Librarian. Thirteen years experience as Deputy Librarian would be sufficient. 4. It is appropriate to refer paragraphs 7 and 8 of the decision of the Apex Court in _**A.K.Raghumani Singh and others** vs._ _**Gopal Chandra Nath and others**_ ((2000) 4 SCC 30) which reads thus: “7. The word “with” has been defined in the New Shorter Oxford Dictionary (1993), diversely the meaning depending on the context in which it is used. But when it is used to connect two nouns it means: “Accompanied by; having as an addition or accompaniment. Frequently used to connect two nouns, in the sense 'and' - 'as well'”. 8. Applying the definition to the eligibility criteria it is clear that it requires the prescribed educational qualification and 6 years' experience as well. Given the plain meaning of the phrase, the Court would not be justified in reading a qualification into the conjunctive word and imply the word “subsequent” after the word “with”. 5. If the interpretation attempted is accepted, it would amount misconstruing the provisions as above and one may have to read it as 'Deputy Librarian with Ph.D qualification having experience of three years'. That was not intended in **W.P.(C) No.13274/2018** **4** the above Regulation. 6. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the University placed reliance on the decision of a Full Bench of this Court in _**Basheer** vs._ _**Saiful Islam**_ (2014 (4) KLT 521) wherein this Court, after referring to Rule 10(ab) of Part II K.S & S.S.R, declared that for direct recruitment, when qualification of experience is prescribed in the Rules, it shall, unless otherwise specified in the recruitment rules, be gained after acquiring the basic educational qualifications. The provisions of K.S & S.S.R as above were referred in the context of the qualification prescribed under the Kerala University Act, 1974. When the State enactment is required to be interpreted, the Full Bench placed reliance on the provisions under the K.S & S.S.R by specifically noting that Statute 10 of Kerala University First Statutes, 1977 is applicable to University as well. In such circumstances, there cannot be any difficulty to hold that the provisions of K.S. & S.S.R can be resorted to understand the scope and ambit of the State legislations. 7. Learned Standing Counsel also referred to the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in _**Rabi** vs._ _**State**_ **W.P.(C) No.13274/2018** **5** _**of Kerala**_ (2007 (4) KLT 335) wherein this Court considered the prescription of teaching experience of three years for the post of Assistant Professor as per Rule 5(b) of Kerala Dental Education Service Special Rules, 1975. In the said case, teaching experience is insisted in the subject for three years. In that context, the Division Bench held that teaching experience in the subject has to be acquired by a candidate after acquiring the qualification. 8. The insistence of experience after acquiring the academic qualification would depend upon the nature of the provisions. For direct recruitment as University Librarian, the only requirement is 13 years experience as Deputy Librarian. Ph.D is only a desirable qualification. Therefore, it is clear that the UGC Regulations never intend to stipulate that experience as Deputy Librarian has to be after acquisition of Ph.D qualification. If that be so, it is sufficient the requisite educational qualification is acquired prior to promotion. In the light of the discussions as above, based on the Selection Committee's proceedings, the petitioner shall be considered for appointment as Librarian in the University **W.P.(C) No.13274/2018** **6** (Stage V) without delay, at any rate, within a period of one month. This writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- ## **A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE** **JUDGE** smp