Dr. Laila T. Abraham v. State of Kerala and Mahatma Gandhi University and Others

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 19[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 27TH ASWINA, 1944`** ## **`WP(C) NO. 9104 OF 2019`** ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` DR.LAILA T.ABRAHAM, AGED 55 YEARS W/O.BABU N JOSEPH, LIBRARIAN UNIVERSITY, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM 686 560. ``` ``` BY ADVS. SRI.SHYAM KRISHNAN SRI.GENS GEORGE ELAVINAMANNIL ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - `1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.` - `2 MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR, PRIYADHARSHINI HILLS, ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM 686 560.` - `3 SYNDCATE OF MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN , VICE CHANCELLOOR, PRIYADHARSHINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM 686 560.` - `4 DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 033.` - `5 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, KOTTAYAM 686 001.` - `BY ADVS. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.ASOK M. CHERIAN, SC, M.G. UNIVERSITY SRI.JOSHY THANNIKKAMATOM – GP SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE -SC` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 9104 OF 2019 2 ``` ## **`JUDGMENT`** The petitioner is working as a University Librarian under the Mahatma Gandhi University (‘M.G.University’ for short) and contends that she is eligible to be retained in service until the age of 60 - it being the superannuation age of University Teachers and Directors of Physical Education. 2. Sri.Shyam Krishnan - learned counsel for the petitioner, pointed out that, even though his client had earlier approached this Court and obtained Ext.P9(a) judgment – whereby, Government is directed to consider her claim in its proper perspective, adverting to the various applicable Regulations of the University Grants Commission (UGC) - it has now come out with Ext.P11 order in a terse manner, without assigning any reason, but still saying that the age of superannuation of University Librarians cannot be enhanced to 60. He alleged that Ext.P11 is peremptorily in contempt of the orders of this Court and therefore, that it is liable to be set aside. 3. After saying as afore, Sri.Shyam Krishnan - learned counsel for the petitioner, further submitted that, as evident from the appendix to the “UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in ## **`WP(C) NO. 9104 OF 2019 3`** Higher Education, 2010” (hereinafter referred to as ‘the UGC Regulations, 2010’ for short), Teachers and Librarians have been treated as being at par. 4. Sri.Shyam Krishnan then pointed out that, as is perspicuous from Ext.P17 - which is the “UGC Notification on Revision of Pay Scales, Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers in Universities and Colleges and Other Measures for the Maintenance of Standards, 1998” (‘UGC Notification, 1998’ for short), it is specified that Librarians, who have been treated at par with the Teachers, should be offered the age of retirement as 62, rather than 60, as earlier provided. He argued that these would clearly establish without any doubt, that University Librarians like his client, are entitled to be offered 60 years as the age of superannuation. 5. In response, however, Sri.Surin George Ipe - learned Standing Counsel for the M.G.University, submitted that the afore submissions of the petitioner cannot hold water because, the age of retirement of various classes of personnel in the University are governed by its applicable Regulations, namely the “Kerala University First Ordinances, 1978”, because no such Ordinances are yet framed for the M.G.University and Section 99 of the M.G.University Act makes the said Regulations applicable. He argued ## **`WP(C) NO. 9104 OF 2019 4`** that, therefore, when it is without doubt that the age of superannuation of University Librarians under the said Regulations continues to be 56, and that which relates to Teachers provides it to be 60, it would not be possible for the petitioner to make any plea as made herein, without challenging such Regulations, which she has not done. 6. Sri.Surin George Ipe then submitted that the question whether the Librarians are equal to Teachers in the services of the University, have been answered by a learned Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1283 of 2016 _**(Harikumar S. & Others v. State of Kerala and Others)**_ to the negative; and that another one as early as in the year 2011, delivered _**Mathai M.M. v. Elizabeth Xavier and Others**_ [2011(2) KLT 468], making it beyond the pale of doubt that ‘UGC Regulations’ are only reccommendatory in nature. He pointed out that _**Harikumar S. (Supra)**_ has recorded the version of the UGC that it leaves to the respective Government or the Universities to decide the age of superannuation of its various classes of personnel. He thus prayed that this writ petition be dismissed. 7. Sri.Joshy Thanikkamattom – learned Government Pleader, went by most of the submissions of Sri.Surin George Ipe afore, adding that modification of the retirement age of the University staff, ## **`WP(C) NO. 9104 OF 2019 5`** including Teachers, is a matter of policy vested with the Government. He argued that, going by the well settled precedents which cover the field, the petitioner cannot dictate to the Government _qua_ the policies to be evolved and that, as long as it has not taken a decision to modify the superannuation age of the various employees of the University, no such plea is maintainable. 8. I must say that, when I evaluate and assess the afore rival submissions, I find substantial force in the contentions of the University and that of the State, because the retirement age of Librarians is not governed by the ‘UGC Regulations’ or by the executive orders of the Government, but by the statutory prescriptions in the applicable Regulations of the University. 9. As long as the petitioner has not challenged the said Regulations, I fail to fathom how she maintains a claim that the age of superannuation with respect to the Librarians in the University service must be altered, to be on par with Teachers. 10. I notice that the afore assertion of the petitioner hinges on the fact that ‘UGC Regulations, 2010’ takes in its fold various categories of personnel, including Teachers and Librarians. This does not, however, _ipso facto_ mean that these two categories are the same; and in fact, as rightly argued by Sri.Surin George Ipe, ## **`WP(C) NO. 9104 OF 2019 6`** _**Harikumar S. (Supra)**_ declares the law conclusively that it is not so. 11. Therefore, any claim of the petitioner will have to be then demonstrated on the basis of any other statutory provision, but which she has not been able to. 12. Further, though, as per the Appendix to the ‘UGC Regulations, 2010’ and Ext.P17 - ‘UGC Notification, 1998’; there is a reference regarding the manner in which the retirement age of Librarians are to be modulated, there is no specific stipulation therein that it has to be done on par with that of Teachers. 13. That being said, Ext.P11, as rightly argued by Sri.Shyam Krishnan, is a very laconic order, which cites no reason for the conclusions therein and does not even refer to any of the relevant or applicable inputs, including the ‘UGC Regulations’, the binding precedents holding the field and such other. 14. I am, therefore of the sure opinion that Government must reconsider the matter - particularly because this Court had already directed such a course through Ext.P9(a) judgment - after affording the petitioner and the University a fresh opportunity of being heard; thus culminating in an appropriate new order, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than four months from the date of receipt of a ## **`WP(C) NO. 9104 OF 2019 7`** copy of this judgment. 15. Needless to say, while completing the afore exercise, Government will take into account all germane aspects, including whether any amendment to the Regulations applying to the M.G.University is required to be done, as also whether the ‘UGC Regulations, 2010’ and the ‘UGC Notification, 1998’ would have any role to play in such a decision making process. Their opinion in this regard shall be reflected specifically in the resultant order. This writ petition is thus ordered. Sd/- ``` DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE ``` ``` MC/19.10 ``` ## **`WP(C) NO. 9104 OF 2019 8`** ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9104/2019`** - `PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE PH D DEGREE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY ALAGAPPA UNIVERSITY.` - `EXHIBIT P1(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE MASTERS DEGREE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE KERALA UNIVERSITY.` - `EXHIBIT P1(B) A TRUE COPY OF THE MASTERS DEGREE CERTIFICATE IN APPLIED LINGUISTICS ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA..` - `EXHIBIT P1(C) A TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF UGC NET. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF UNIVERSITY ORDER DATED 2.11.2007 GRANTING UGC SCHEME BENEFITS.` - `EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE UNIVERSITY ORDER DATED 31.8.2018 PROMOTING THE PETITIONER TO LIBRARIAN UNIVERSITY.` - `EXHIBIT P3(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 28.2.2019 ISSUED BY THE KUF AND OS.` - `EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 24.12.1998 ISSUED BY THE UGC.` - `EXHIBIT P4(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 18.9.2010 ISSUED BY THE UGC.` - `EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE GO DATED 24.3.2017 ENAHNCING THE AGE OF SUPER ANNUATION OF DEAN OF STUDIES.` - `EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF SELECTION COMMITTEE MINUTES DATED 31.1.2018.` - `EXHIBIT P7 UNIVERSITY ORDER DATED 1.8.2011 IMPLEMENTING UGC REGULATION 2010.` - `EXHIBIT P7(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE UGC LETTER DATED 11.2.2016 REGARDING NON VOCATIONAL DECLARATION OF LIBRARIAN AS NON-VOCATIONAL LIBRARY POST.` - `EXHIBIT P7(B) A TRUE COPY OF APEX COURT ORDER DATED 19.12.2008 DISMISSING SLP NO. 14535/2007.` - `EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 14.3.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE GOVERNMENT.` - `EXHIBIT P8(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE UNIVERSITY ORDER DATED 24.8.2002 FIXING THE AGE OF SUPERANNUATION COACHES AS 60 YEARS.` - `EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 14.11.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE GOVERNMENT.` - `EXHIBIT P9(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED` ## **`WP(C) NO. 9104 OF 2019 9`** - `8.11.2018 IN WPC NO. 36341 OF 2018.` - `EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE G O DATED 27.3.2010 IMPLEMENTING UGC SCHEME.` - `EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(RT)NO 903 OF 2019 FOR ENHANCEMENT OF AGE OF SUPERANNUATION.` - `EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO..B4/124/2019HEDN DATED 17.08.2019 FRM THE 1ST RESPONDENT HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT TO THE REGISTRAR OF MG UNIVERSITY.` - `EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONERS RTI APPLICATION DATED 17.10.2019.` - `EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION NO.1331489/INFR. 1/296/2019/FIN. DATED 20.11.2019` - `EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE EXPERT COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS DATED 09.07.1987, PERTAINING TO LIBRARIANS AND THIER PARITY IN THE MATTER OF PAY SCALE AND AGE OF SUPERANNUATION WITH THAT OF UNIVERSITY TEACHERS.` ``` Exhibit P16TRUE COPY OF NOTE NO.24 OF THE FLE NO.HEDN-B4/124/2019-HEDN (COMPUTER NO.1153012) DATED 04/01/2020 OF THE HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT. ``` - `Exhibit P17 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF UGC REGULATIONS 1998 (PARA 16.0.0 TO 16.2.0).` - `Exhibit P18 TRUE COPY OF GO(MS) NO.87/91/H.EDN. DATED 09/04/1991 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT.` ``` Exhibit P19TRUE COPY OF ORDER BEARING U.O.NO.4233/L/ACAD/2011 DATED 01/08/2011 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY. ``` - `Exhibit P20 TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PART OF THE CENTRAL UNIVERSITY ACT, 2009 (SECTION 9)` - `Exhibit P21 TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS` - `NO.GA/J3/16137/2016 DATED 02/08/2021 OF THE KERALA ARGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY.` - `Exhibit P22 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 01/02/2020 OF THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA ADDRESSED TO THE REGISTRAR OF MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY.` - `Exhibit P23 TRUE COPY OF NOTE NOS.33,35,36 AND 37 FROM THE DATE OF 18/02/2020 TO 05/03/2020 OF THE FILE NO.HEDN-B4/124/2019-HEDN OF THE HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT.` - `Exhibit P24 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 13/06/2019 IN` ## **`WP(C) NO. 9104 OF 2019 10`** ``` CONTEMPT CASE CIVIL NO.1951 OF 2018 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT. ```