High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2015-10-13Writ petition dismissed; no costs.

K. ALPHI JOSEPH v. The Secretary, Higher Education Department, Government of Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram, and Others

Case / Petition Number:W.P.(C).No.15736 of 2004-W

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: K. Vinod Chandran
Judgment Date: 2015-10-13
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition dismissed. No costs.
Final Disposition: Writ petition dismissed; no costs.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

K. ALPHI JOSEPH

Respondents

The Secretary, Higher Education Department, Government of Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram
The Director of Collegiate Education, Thiruvananthapuram
The Deputy Director of Collegiate Education, Thrissur
The Principal, St. Joseph's College, Irinjalakuda
The Registrar University of Calicut, Calicut University
Additional 6th Respondent: University Grants Commission (represented by its Secretary, Office of the University Grants Commission, New Delhi)

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• G. Sreekumar (Chelur)
• S.P. Aravindakshan Pillay
• Smt. N. Santha
• Sri K.A. Balan
• Sri Franco T.J.

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri S. Jamal
• Sri K.J. George
• Sri S. Santhosh Mathew
• Dr. S. Gopakumaran Nair, SC, Calicut University
• Sri E.S. Ashraf, SC, Calicut University
• Sri S. Krishnamoorthy

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner, K. ALPHI JOSEPH, a part-time Law Lecturer appointed in 1978 at St. Joseph's College, Irinjalakuda, seeks to be fixed in the UGC pay scale under the UGC Scheme for part-time teachers. He contends that his appointment, made through a regular Staff Selection Committee and supported by government pay scales, should be regulated by the UGC Scheme (as reflected in Exhibit P4) and government orders that permit such remuneration. The core issue is whether a Part-time Lecturer, who lacks the post-graduate qualification and NET mandated by the UGC Scheme (clause 6.1.2 and related provisions), can be accommodated in the UGC pay scale. The petitioner argues entitlement based on the UGC Framework and the subsidiary Go orders that allow continued payment at the higher scale. The respondents counter that the UGC Scheme requires, at a minimum, a post-graduate degree and NET for lecturers, and that Part-time appointments under the pre-UGC framework do not automatically attract UGC scale. The court notes documentary exhibits (P4, P5–P7) and a position that the petitioner’s appointment under a 1974 government order is on consolidated remuneration, not as a regular lecturer under UGC qualifications. A referenced unreported decision (W.P.(C).No.32047 of 2009, T.S. Rajasenan) is cited to support that lack of required qualifications confines eligibility. The petition is dismissed with no costs, on the ground that the petitioner cannot be placed in the UGC scale due to insufficient qualifications under the Scheme.

Provisions of Law Cited

UGC Scheme - Clause 6.1.2 (post-graduate qualification and NET required)UGC Scheme - Clause 6.12 (Lecturer qualifications)G.O.(MS) No.141/74/H.Edn. (24.09.1974)G.O.(MS) No.66/66/90/H.Edn. (13.03.1990)G.O.(P) No.171/99/H.Edn. (21.12.1999)G.O. dated 4.7.2000

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends entitlement to placement in the UGC pay scale for Part-time Lecturers, asserting that selection by a regular Staff Selection Committee and government pay structures should align with the UGC Scheme (Exhibit P4). He argues government orders permit continuation in the scale and that the university accepts payments under the UGC framework. He maintains he possesses the minimum education qualifications and is thus eligible for the UGC scale under the Scheme; nonetheless, he lacks the post-graduate qualification and NET required for lecturer status.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents submit that Part-time Lecturers must satisfy the UGC Scheme's qualifications, including post-graduate qualification and NET (Clause 6.1.2 and related provisions). They contend that the petitioner, appointed under G.O.(MS) No.141/74/H.Edn. (1974) on consolidated remuneration, does not meet the UGC Scheme criteria for regular Lecturer placement. They argue that the UGC scheme does not automatically override mandatory qualifications and that the Government orders do not compel fixation in the UGC scale for a non-regular lecturer. They rely on prior decisions (unreported) indicating that lack of requisite qualifications precludes UGC scale fixation.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
T.S. Rajasenan v. Secretary, Higher Education Department and others	W.P.(C).No.32047 of 2009	Positive	Unreported decision cited as squarely applicable, supporting the view that the petitioner cannot be fixed in UGC scale due to lack of required qualifications, aligning with the present matter.

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 K. ALPHI JOSEPH v. The Secretary, Higher Education Department, Government of Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram, and Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2015/21ST ASWINA, 1937 ## W.P.(C).No.15736 of 2004 (W) ---------------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S):- -------------------------- K.ALPHI JOSEPH, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O. N.V. JOSEPH KUTTIKKAT, [PART TIME LAW LECTURER, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT], NEYYAN HOUSE, IRINJALAKUDA (DESOM) VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, KERALA. BY ADVS.SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY SMT.N.SANTHA SRI.K.A.BALAN SRI.FRANCO T.J. ## RESPONDENT(S):- ---------------------------- ## 1. THE SECRETARY, - HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, THRISSUR. 4. THE PRINCIPAL, ST.JOSEPH'S COLLEGE, IRINJALAKUDA. 5. THE REGISTRAR UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, CALICUT UNIVERSITY.P.O. MALAPPURAM (DT.). W.P.(C).NO.15736 OF 2004-W - 2 - - Addl.R6. UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION, - REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION, BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG, NEW DELHI - 110 001. - [ADDITIONAL 6TH RESPONDENT IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 28/02/2013 IN IA 2706/2013]. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.S. JAMAL. - R4 BY ADV.SRI.K.J.GEORGE. - R5 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW. - R6 BY CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY. R5 BY ADV. DR.S.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR, SC, CALICUT UTY. R5 BY ADV. SRI.E.S.ASHRAF, SC, CALICUT UNIVERSITY. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13-10-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## W.P.(C).NO.15736 OF 2004-W ## APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:------------------------------------EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS OF SELECTION OF THE PETITIONER DATED 24.8.1978 ISSUED FROM ST.JOSEPH'S COLLEGE, IRINJALAKUDA. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 18.10.1978 ISSUED TO THE PETITIOENR BY PRESIDENT OF THE MANAGING BOARD, ST.JOSEPH'S COLLEGE, IRINJALAKUDA. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.GA/A5/7919/78 DATED 23.11.1978 ISSUED BY 5TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF G.O.(P) NO.171/99/H.EDN. DATED 21.12.1999. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 4.7.2000. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT OF FIXATION DATED 30.04.2002 FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF UNDERTAKING DTD.30.4.2002 FILED BY -DO- BEFORE THE -DO-. EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF FORM OF OPTION DATED 30.04.2002 FILED BY -DO- BEFORE THE -DO-. EXT.P9 TRUE COPY OF ORDER VIDE NO.E1/2090/02 DATED 13.3.2002, ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P10 TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIOENR VIDE INTIMATION NUMBER A-64/2000. EXT.P11 TRUE COPY OF G.O.(MS) NO.66/66/90/H.EDN. DATED 13.03.90. EXT.P12 TRUE COPY OF APPEAL DATED 19.09.2002 FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P13 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 28.11.2002 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE MINISTER OF EDUCATION, KERALA. EXT.P14 TRUE COPY OF NO.4174/D2/2003/H.EDN. DATED 4.12.2003 ISSUED BY DEPUTY SECRETARY, FOR PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FOR PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT. W.P.(C).NO.15736 OF 2004-W - 2 - RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- --------------------------------------- EXT.R2(a) G.O.MS.NO.141/74/H.EDN. DATED 24.9.74. vku/- [ true copy ] ## K. Vinod Chandran, J ------------------------------------------W.P.(C).No.15736 of 2004-W ------------------------------------------Dated this the 13[th] day of October, 2015 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner is aggrieved with the fact that the petitioner has not been fixed in the UGC scale as per the UGC Scheme and granted the revision of scales effected by Exhibit P4. 2. The petitioner, admittedly, is a graduate in Law, who has been appointed in pursuance to a proper selection conducted by the Staff Selection Committee, as is indicated at Exhibit P1. The petitioner has been appointed to the post of Part-time Law Lecturer under the University for imparting training to Commerce students by Exhibit P2 on 18.10.1978. The petitioner has the minimum qualification for such appointment as sanctioned by the University and the petitioner is being paid the salary and allowances as admitted by the Government. The petitioner's contention WP(C).No.15736 of 2004 - 2 - herein is that, the petitioner has to be accommodated in the UGC scale as a Part-time Teacher. 3. The provision in Exhibit P4 with respect to Part-time Teacher at paragraph 10.1 specifically indicates that the minimum qualification for appointment of Part-time Lecturer should be the same as that of regular Lecturer and selected by regularly constituted Selection Committees. Though the petitioner is selected by a regularly constituted Selection Committee, the petitioner admittedly is not having the qualification for appointment as a Lecturer as indicated in the UGC Scheme. 4. Though the entire UGC Scheme has not been produced at Exhibit P4, the learned counsel for the petitioner hands over, across the Bar, a copy of the same. The prescription is indicated in clause 6.1.2 of the Scheme, which is extracted hereunder: ## “6.12 LECTURER Humanities, Social Sciences, Sciences, Commerce, Education, Physical Education, foreign Languages and Law. - 3 - WP(C).No.15736 of 2004 Good academic record with at least 55% of the marks or, an equivalent grade of B in the 7 point scale with latter grades O, A, B, C, D, E & F at Master's degree level, in the relevant subject from an Indian University, or, an equivalent degree from a foreign University. Besides fulfilling the above qualifications, candidates should have cleared the eligibility test (NET) for lecturers conducted by the UGC, CSIR or similar test accredited by the UGC”. Hence, necessarily a person to be appointed as Lecturer has to have the post-graduate qualification and in such circumstance, a Part-time Teacher who does not have a qualification, cannot be accommodated in the UGC Scheme. The petitioner's continuance, however, would have no difficulty, since the Government Order adopted by the University permits the same and the Government also pays the pay and allowances at the scales applicable to such appointments. However, the liability for Government to pay the scales under the UGC Scheme would be there only if the person is qualified to be appointed as a Permanent Part-time WP(C).No.15736 of 2004 - 4 - Lecturer and is continued as such. The petitioner, lacking the qualification to be appointed as a regular Lecturer, cannot be fixed in the Permanent Part-time Lecturer's scale as applicable in the UGC Scheme. 5. The petitioner obviously was appointed as a Part-time Lecturer under G.O.(MS) No.141/74/H.Edn. Dated 24.09.1974, under a consolidated remuneration, excluding vacation. The issue also stands covered by the unreported decision of this Court in **W.P.(C).No.32047 of 2009** dated 30.11.2012 _**[T.S.Rajasenan v. Secretary, Higher Education Department and others]**_ . The learned counsel for the petitioner would draw a distinction that therein the teacher was appointed specifically on 'contract basis' and herein no such deduction could be made. However it is to be noticed that the decision cited also refers to the above referred G.O. and though Exhibit P2 does not contain a recital as to the appointment being on contract, necessarily the terms of the G.O. under which the appointment was made would indicate it to be so. Exhibit R2(a) also would WP(C).No.15736 of 2004 - 5 - clearly indicate the terms of appointment of the petitioner, which persuades this Court further to hold that the aforecited decision is squarely applicable here too. The writ petition, hence, would stand dismissed. No costs. **Sd/-** K.Vinod Chandran Judge. vku/- [ true copy ]