Dr. P. Rajendran Nair & Others v. State of Kerala & University of Kerala & Directorate of Management, Technology and Teacher Education (DOMTEC), University of Kerala and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA** **MONDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF JUNE 2020 / 11TH JYAISHTA, 1942** ## **WP(C).No.143 OF 2020(P)** ## **PETITIONERS:** - **1 DR. P. RAJENDRAN NAIR AGED 63 YEARS** - **PRINCIPAL, UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, REGIONAL CENTRE, MANNAR (UNIVERSITY OF KERALA), ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT** - **2 PROF. ANDREWS T.I., PRINCIPAL, UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, REGIONAL CENTRE, NEYYATTINKARA, (UNIVERSITY OF KERALA), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.** - **3 PROF. NINAN P. V. PRINCIPAL, UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, REGIONAL CENTRE, KOTTARAKARA (UNIVERSITY OF KERALA), KOLLAM DISTRICT.** - **4 PROF. JOHN M. GEORGE PRINCIPAL, UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, REGIONAL CENTRE, ADOOR (UNIVERSITY OF KERALA), PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.** - **5 DR. GEORGE VARGHESE PRINCIPAL, UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, REGIONAL CENTRE, MANNADI (UNIVERSITY OF KERALA), KOLLAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN (SR.) SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) SRI.S.VIBHEESHANAN SRI.K.SUDHINKUMAR SRI.S.K.ADHITHYAN SRI.SABU PULLAN** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.** ## **WP(C).Nos.143 OF 2020(P) & 9796 OF 2020(Y)** 2 - **2 UNIVERSITY OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, KERALA UNIVERSITY P. O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 034.** - **3 THE REGISTRAR UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, KERALA UNIVERSITY P. O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 034.** - **4 THE DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF MANAGEMENT, TECHNOLOGY AND TEACHER EDUCATION (DOMTEC), UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, KERALA UNIVERSITY P. O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 034.** **BY SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM, SC, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA** **OTHER PRESENT:** ## **SR.GP.SRI.P.M.MANOJ** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01.06.2020, ALONG WITH WP(C).NO.9796/2020(Y), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).Nos.143 OF 2020(P) & 9796 OF 2020(Y)** 3 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA** **MONDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF JUNE 2020 / 11TH JYAISHTA, 1942** **WP(C).No.9796 OF 2020(Y)** ## **PETITIONERS:** - **1 DR.P.RAJENDRAN NAIR PRINCIPAL UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, REGIONAL CENTRE, MANNAR (UNIVERSITY OF KERALA), ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.** - **2 PROF. ANDREWS.T.I. PRINCIPAL , UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, REGIONAL CENTRE, NEYYTTINKARA, (UNIVERSITY OF KERALA), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.** - **3 PROF. NINAN P.V. PRINCIPAL UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, REGIONAL CENTRE, KOTTARAKARA, (UNIVERSITY OF KERALA), KOLLAM DISTRICT.** - **4 PROF. JOHN M. GEORGE, PRINCIPAL UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, REGIONAL CENTRE, ADOOR (UNIVERSITY OF KERALA), PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.** - **5 DR. GEORGE VARGHESE, PRINCIPAL, UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, REGIONAL CENTRE, MANNADI, (UNIVERSALITY OF KERALA), KOLLAM DISTRICT.** **DR.K.P.SATHEESAN (SR.) SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) SRI.K.SUDHINKUMAR SRI.S.K.ADHITHYAN SRI.SABU PULLAN SRI.GOKUL D. SUDHAKARAN** ## **WP(C).Nos.143 OF 2020(P) & 9796 OF 2020(Y)** 4 ## **RESPONDENTS:** |**1**|**STATE OF KERALA**| |---|---| ||**REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,**| ||**HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT**| ||**SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.**| |**2**|**UNIVERSITY OF KERALA,**| ||**REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR,**| ||**KERALA UNIVERSITY P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 034.**| |**3**|**THE REGISTRAR,**| ||**UNIVERSITY OF KERALA,**| ||**KERALA UNIVERSITY P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 034.**| |**4**|**THE DIRECTOR,**| ||**DIRECTORATE OF MANAGEMENT, TECHNOLOGY AND TEACHER**| ||**EDUCATION (DOMTEC), UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, KERALA**| ||**UNIVERSITY P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 034.**| ||**BY SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM, SC, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA**| ||**BY SR.GP.SRI.P.M.MANOJ**| **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01.06.2020, ALONG WITH WP(C).NO.143/2020(P), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **WP(C).Nos.143 OF 2020(P) & 9796 OF 2020(Y)** 5 ## **J U D G M E N T** Both these writ petitions are filed by the very same petitioners who had been working as Principals in the various Regional Centres of University Institute of Technology run by the University of Kerala. Their grievance is over Ext.P6 order of the University directing that Principals above the age of 62 years shall be relieved. 2. All the petitioners were appointed as Principals pursuant to Ext.P2 notification issued on 16.03.2012, by which applications were invited from among qualified hands who were below the age of 64 years as on 01.01.2012. It is stated that they were appointed as per orders similar to Ext.P3 dated 03.07.2013 on contract basis. Though the appointments were for one year, they continued from year to year with artificial breaks in between. Relying on Ext.P5 order issued by the University on 23.06.2017 ## **WP(C).Nos.143 OF 2020(P) & 9796 OF 2020(Y)** 6 petitioners claim that the decision of the syndicate even in 2017 was to continue the Principals like them in the self financing institutions under the University, till they attained the age of 65 years. Whileso, the University issued Ext.P6 order on 09.10.2019 directing to relieve those Principals who crossed the age of 62 years. The petitioners claim that the age limit fixed for appointment in Ext.P2 notification issued in 2012, based on which they submitted applications was 64 and that the retirement age of the Principals of such self financing institutions was fixed as 65 years in Ext.P1 order. They claim that they are entitled to continue upto the age of 65 on the basis of Ext.P1 order issued by the University which was prevailing at the time when they were appointed. It is also their case that there was no fresh selection after their appointments in the year 2013 and thereafter. 3. Petitioners claim that the artificial ## **WP(C).Nos.143 OF 2020(P) & 9796 OF 2020(Y)** 7 breaks in between are liable to be ignored as they continued right from 2013. It is also their case that they joined the respective posts with the legitimate expectation that they would be able to continue till the age of 65 years in institutions which are near to their home town. 4. W.P.(C) No.143 of 2020 was filed on 06.01.20 challenging Ext.P6 order and seeking directions to respondents to permit the petitioners to continue in service till they attained the age of 65 years. 5. During the pendency of the said writ petition the University issued an order dated 05.05.2020 (produced as Ext.P7 in W.P.(C).No.9796 of 2020) directing that Principals and Assistant Professors in UITs who were permitted to continue till 31[st] March shall be allowed to continue till 30[th] April 2020. This extension was granted in the light of the Lock down ordered consequent to the the spread ## **WP(C).Nos.143 OF 2020(P) & 9796 OF 2020(Y)** 8 of Novel Corona Virus (Covid 19). The petitioners have thereupon filed W.P.(C) No.9796 of 2020 challenging Ext.P7 order (produced in that writ petition) 6. Statements are filed on behalf of the University in both these writ petitions. It is stated that though the syndicate of the University had resolved to fix the maximum age upto which Principals could be retained in the KUCTEs, UITs and IC, as 65 in 2011 and Ext.P1 order was issued on 20.01.2012 accordingly, the Syndicate had in its meeting held on 20.06.2019 (as per minutes produced as Annexure R2(a) in W.P.(C) 9796 of 2020) resolved that the Principals of KUCTEs, UITs and IC can be allowed to continue only upto the age of 62 years. It is stated that in the case of those already crossed 62 years, it was decided to allow them to complete the current academic year. It is stated that petitioners were appointed for a period of one year on contract basis ## **WP(C).Nos.143 OF 2020(P) & 9796 OF 2020(Y)** 9 and they cannot have any right to continue beyond the term of their appointment. 7. Heard the learned Senior Counsel and the learned Standing Counsel. 8. Admittedly the appointment of the petitioners were on contract basis. The order Ext.P3 issued in favour of the first petitioner on 03.07.2013 would show that his appointment was for a period of one year on a consolidated remuneration of Rs.20,000/- per month and it was also specified therein that the appointment would not confer on them any claim in future for regular appointment. Ext.P2 notification pursuant to which petitioners were appointed, would show that applications were invited from among persons with 20 years of teaching experience from the departments in the University/Affiliated Colleges, for appointment for a period of 12 months on contract basis. Petitioners themselves have stated that they continued with ## **WP(C).Nos.143 OF 2020(P) & 9796 OF 2020(Y)** 10 artificial break in service. It is seen that petitioners were continuing on the strength of agreements executed every year. Ext.P1 order would show that it was issued on the basis of a decision of the Syndicate which was convened on 13.12.2011, limiting retention of Principals in such Regional Centres to 65 years. Ext.P6 order dated 09.10.2019 would show that it was issued on the basis of the decisions of the Syndicate held on 20.06.2019 and 08.08.2019. Petitioners do not have a case that the syndicate does not have any authority to fix or reduce the age limit of the Principals. The authority to fix the retirement age/maximum age upto which a teacher or an employee can be continued in service is vested in the employer, depending on its requirement. The syndicate which once limited it as 65 years has now found it appropriate to limit it at 62 years. 9. The notification inviting applications or the order appointing the petitioners do not give any ## **WP(C).Nos.143 OF 2020(P) & 9796 OF 2020(Y)** 11 assurance to petitioners that they would be retained till they attain 65 years. Even the age of retirement governed by statutory rules can be reduced, as held by the apex court (See the judgments in **K. Nagraj v. State of A.P** [(1985)1 SCC 523], **M.P. Vidyut Karamchari Sangh v. M.P. Electricity Board** [(2004) 9 SCC 755], etc), as these are matters relating to policy. The legitimate expectation of the petitioners cannot by itself a factor to be considered for retention of the petitioners when the authority competent has taken a decision. It would not be within the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to interfere with such decisions taken by academic bodies. 10. It is also relevant to note that petitioners who were appointed on contract basis do not have any right to continue beyond the contract period as held by the Apex Court in **Yogesh Mahajan V AIIMS** [(2018) 3 SCC 218], just because they continued ## **WP(C).Nos.143 OF 2020(P) & 9796 OF 2020(Y)** 12 beyond one year. 11. The order Ext.P7 has only extended the tenure of persons like the petitioners till 30[th] April, 2020 instead of 31[st] March, 2020. 12. Though the Senior Counsel relied on the judgment in **Najeema M.M and Others v. Kerala State Beverages (M&M) Corpn, Sasthamangalam and Another** [2013 (1) KHC 128] in support of his contention that the artificial breaks in between are to be ignored, I am of the view that the appointment involved therein was a temporary appointment and not contract appointment and moreover it was also directed therein that the said judgment shall not be treated as a precedent. That judgment rendered in peculiar circumstances of that case would not apply to the factual circumstances of the present case. In the above circumstances of the case Ext.P6 or Ext.P7 orders do not require any interference. Accordingly these writ petitions are dismissed. Sd/- AS **P.V.ASHA, JUDGE** **WP(C).Nos.143 OF 2020(P) & 9796 OF 2020(Y)** 13 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 143/2020** **PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:** - **EXHIBIT P1** **TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.AD.A.VII.2.6719/2011 DATED 20.1.2012 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P2** **TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.AD.A.VII.2.503/2012 DATED 16.3.2012 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P3** **TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER ISSUED TO THE FIRST PETITIONER BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT AS MEMO NO.AD.A.VII.2.9008/2013 DATED 3.7.2013.** - **EXHIBIT P4** - **TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.ACAD.A4/MISC/20663/2018 DATED 6.6.2019 ISSUED BY THE KANNUR UNIVERSITY.** - **EXHIBIT P4 (a) ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT. P4.** - **EXHIBIT P5** - **TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.AD.A.VII.2.9027/2013 DATED 23.6.2017 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P6** **TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.AD.A.VII(A) /DOCTEC-AGE LIMIT/2019 DATED 9.10.2019 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** ## **WP(C).Nos.143 OF 2020(P) & 9796 OF 2020(Y)** 14 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9796/2020** **PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1** **TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO. AD. A. VII. 2.6719/2011 DATED 20.01.2012 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO. AD.A.VII.2.503/2012 DATED 16.03.2012 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER ISSUED TO THE FIRST PETITIONER BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT AS MEMO NO. AD.A.VII.2.9008/2013 DATED 3.7.2013.** - **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO. ACAD.A4/MISC/20663/2018 DATED 6.6.2019 ISSUED BY THE KANNUR UNIVERSITY** - **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. AD.A.VII.2.9027/2013 DATED 23.06.2017 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. AD.A.VII(A)/DOCTEC-AGE LIMITED/2019 DATED 9.10.2019 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 1187/20202/UOK DATED 5.5.20202 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** - **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT R2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE MINUTES OF THE SYNDICATE MEETING HELD ON 20.06.2019.**