High Court of KeralaDivision Bench2019-07-03Appeals allowed in most connected matters; the ...

WA No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases (The High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam)

Case / Petition Number:WA.No.2394/2018 and Connected cases (and connected WA numbers)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: K. Vinod Chandran
V. G. Arun
Judgment Date: 2019-07-03
Court Decision / Holding: The Court held that the SFIs are effectively part of the University for purposes of staff status and that several petitioners were permanent employees, entitled to regular scales and to be continued as University teachers. It directed restoration and deployment of staff, payment of back wages, and equal pay on the terms they enjoyed prior to de-linking, with pay protection. It reserved some WA numbers for dismissal. It found that the formation of CPAS and the transfer to CPAS did not negate the judgments that granted regular status; it held that permanent employees must be accommodated in the Society or in the University with due compensation if retrenchment is required.
Final Disposition: Appeals allowed in most connected matters; the appellants are declared permanent employees of the University (or to be deployed to CPAS on terms identical to earlier University terms) with pay protection and back wages. WA Nos.10, 663, and 1018 of 2019 were dismissed. The CPAS transfer and Society formation are not interfered with, but malice in law and illegality of abrupt terminations are condemned; orders for retrenchment/deployment to CPAS on equivalent terms are issued as per the directions at X XII of the judgment.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Sajeesh Kumar R. A
Kunjumon K.K
Princy Varghese
Jayaraj S.
Shameer B.
Jaikrishnan P.R.
Babu P.K.
Rajendran P.G.
Binoi C Mathew
Abdul Muhammed Rasheed
Valyomana A.G
Yamuna Jose
Anu N. Baby
Manju P. Joseph
Shibi Mathew
Somy Syriac
Suma C.
Ragina J.
Sapthami R.S.
Daliamol M.A.
Sreeja Mohan
Lekshmipriya P.S.
Neenu Jose
Shazia NoorIn Binsyed Musthafa
Siji George
Rathinath R.
Sherlymol Antony
Nirmala V.
Sherlymol Antony (additional)
Rani Sreedaran
Sanil Raj
Ancy Paul
KOCHURANI JACOB
SOMETHING

Respondents

State of Kerala
Mahatma Gandhi University (MGU)
The Syndicate, MGU
Centre for Professional and Advanced Studies (CPAS)
Director, School of Medical Education (SME)
Co-ordinator, University College of Teacher Education (UCTE)
Director, Centre for Professional and Advanced Studies (CPAS)
Director, School of Medical Education (SME)
Syndicate Member, MGU

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Kaleeswaram Raj Kumar (Sr)
• Aruna Kum Thulasi K. Raj
• Babu Cherukara (Sr)
• Surin George IPE (SC, MGU)
• M.A. Asif (SPL.GP CPAS)

Counsels for Respondents

• Surin George IPE (SC, MGU)
• P.C. Sasidharan (SC CPAS)
• M.A. Asif (SPL.GP CPAS)
• T.A Shaji (SR)
• Suryan George IPE (SC)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This batch of writ appeals and connected matters concerns the status of teaching and non-teaching staff formerly employed in Self Financing Institutions (SFIs) run by Mahatma Gandhi University (MGU) and subsequently de-linked into a Government-formed Society (CPAS) for continued delivery of professional courses. The Supreme Court had earlier held that SFIs are part of the University, with staff entitled to AICTE/UGC pay scales, and that permanent faculty can be recognized despite their initial contractual appointments. The Kerala High Court, in a long, multi-voiced judgment delivered on 03 July 2019, consolidates a vast corpus of prior Division Bench and Supreme Court authorities (including Bijamma Thomas line of cases and the 2013-2016 decisions) to conclude that, in most of the reviewed appeals, the petitioners were permanently employed against substantive posts and treated as university teachers despite initial contractual arrangements. It holds that abrupt terminations in the wake of de-linking and transfer to CPAS were illegal, and directs restoration or deployment of those workers on terms at least equivalent to earlier AICTE/UGC scales, with back wages and continuity. The judgment recognizes that while the Society is a State instrumentality, relief must be calibrated against the ongoing viability of courses, with retrenchment or severance to be effected lawfully where abolition of posts occurs. The court reserves certain appeals (WA Nos. 10, 663, 1018 of 2019) for dismissal, but overall declares permanent status for many petitioners and mandates restoration under the University framework or CPAS with pay protection.

Provisions of Law Cited

Mahatma Gandhi University Act, 1985 - Section 2(8), 2(29), 2(30), 2(33); Section 23 (especially clauses ix and xxvi); Chapter 3 of Statutes; Statute 2 of Chapter III; Section 5(xxiii)Health Sciences Act (for medical education); Technological University Act (Section 60)AICTE/UGC norms and approvals; Government/AICTE communications regarding pay scalesKerala Service Rules; Payment of Gratuity Act, ID Act provisions (Section 25F) for retrenchment compensationBudgetary/viability considerations; emergency powers under MG University Act Section 10(17) (emergency provisions)Judicial precedents cited (see cited_cases)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Legal malice (Kalabharati Advertising v Hemant Vimalnath Narichania)
Freedom from permanent adhocism in public service (as per W.A. No. 794/13 and subsequent authorities)
Ajai Hasia v Khalid Mujib Sehravardi test for State under Article 12 (Ajay Hasia)
Ferocious insistence on proper retrenchment under due process (Navneet Verma; Des Raj Sangar)
Pendency of final judgments binding on subsequent governmental actions (binds university and state)
M.G. University Act provisions enabling abolition of posts with six months’ notice (when permanent) under Statute provisions

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants argued that the Self Financing Institutions (SFIs) under MG University were maintained as permanent units within the University framework. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, AICTE/UGC norms, and earlier Division Bench decisions, they asserted that SFIs were part of the University and that their staff were entitled to regular pay scales and permanent status. They contended that the transfer to the CPAS, a government-formed Society, and the associated terminations were illegal and that viable employment with proper pay scales must be preserved; if not, retrenchment with due process must be implemented.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contended that SFIs were not part of the University’s formal Departments; they were established as autonomous Self Financing Institutes. They argued that staffing was contractual or temporary, pay scales were governed by AICTE/UGC norms where applicable, and financial viability of the Institutes necessitated dissolution or transfer. They argued the CPAS is a state instrumentality and that de-linking was a policy decision, not amenable to direct judicial review of employment terms; retrenchment could be effected under law; post-abolition, employees could be deployed or retrenched with due compensation.

Cited Precedents (15)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Civil Appeal Nos. 2388-2389 of 2019	—	Positive	Supreme Court decision cited as supportive of treating SFIs as part of the University and recognizing regular pay scales.
W.A. No. 794/2013 and connected cases	—	Positive	Division Bench decision on permanent status and pay scales later affirmed by Supreme Court.
W.A. No. 442/2014	—	Partly Overruled / Limited	Earlier Division Bench decision relied upon by some arguments; later developments by Supreme Court altered its applicability.
Bijamma Thomas case	—	Positive	Key early decision classifying certain SFIs as permanent; relied upon by appellants.
Ajay Hasia v Khalid Mujib Sehravardi	1981 (1) SCC 722	Positive	Test for State under Article 12, used to analyze CPAS as a State instrumentality.
Kalabharati Advertising v Hemant Vimalnath Narichania	2010 (9) SCC 437	Positive	Legal malice doctrine invoked for unlawful actions by government/State instruments.
Bharathidasan University v AICTE	(2001) 8 SCC 676	Positive	AICTE regime relevance to professional courses and approvals.
Jawaharlal Nehru University v Dr. Jawalkar	1989 Supp. (1) SCC 679	Positive	Transfer and consent principles governing employment in academic entities.
Des Raj Sangar	(2005) 2 SCC 673	Positive	Good faith requirement for abolition of posts.
Nihal Singh v State of Punjab	(2013) [relevant S.C. discussion]	Positive	Principles on post abolition and ongoing employment practices.
Tamil Nadu v. State of Kerala	(2014) 12 SCC 696	Positive	Transfer and recognition of post across states; AICTE/AICTE approvals.
Navneet Verma v State of Haryana	(2009) 3 SCC 338	Positive	Retribution and retrenchment principles in state employment contexts.
M. Ramanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala	(1973) 2 SCC 650	Positive	Statutory power limitations on abolishing posts.
Marathwada University v Seshrao Balwant Rao Chavan	(1989) 3 SCC 132	Positive	Ultra vires or proper exercise of statutory power by public authorities.
K.K. Saksena v International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage	(2015) 4 SCC 670	Positive	Legal principles on state/instrumentality controls.

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 WA No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases (The High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam) 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** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF JULY 2019 / 12TH ASHADHA, 1941** **WA.No.2394 of 2018** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 28535/2018 of HIGHCOURT** ## **APPELLANTS:** - **1 SAJEESH KUMAR R. AGED 44 YEARS** - **INSTRUCTOR GR.II, UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, MUTTOM, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI-685 584.** - **2 KUNJUMON.K.K. INSTRUCTOR GR.II, UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, MUTTOM, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI-685 584.** - **3 PRINCY VARGHESE INSTRUCTOR GR.II, UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, MUTTOM, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI-685 584.** - **4 JAYARAJ.S. TRADE INSTRUCTOR GR.II, UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, MUTTOM, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI-685 584.** - **5 SHAMEER.B. TRADE INSTRUCTOR GR.II, UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, MUTTOM, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI-685 584.** - **6 JAIKRISHNAN.P.R. INSTRUCTOR GR.II, UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, MUTTOM, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI-685 584.** - **7 BABU.P.K.** **TRADE INSTRUCTOR GR.II, UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, MUTTOM, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI-685 584.** - **8 RAJENDRAN.P.G. TRADE INSTRUCTOR GR.II, UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, MUTTOM, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI-685 584.** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::2:: **9 BINOI C.MATHEW TRADE INSTRUCTOR GR.II, UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, MUTTOM, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI-685 584.** **BY ADVS. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ KUM.A.ARUNA KUM.THULASI K. RAJ** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** - **2 MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 560.** - **3 THE SYNDICATE, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY THE VICE CHANCELLOR, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 560.** - **4 THE CO-ORDINATOR, UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION, UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION MAIN CENTRE, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 560.** - **5 CENTRE FOR PROFESSIONAL AND ADVANCES STUDIES, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, ARPOOKARA, KOTTAYAM686 521.** - **BY ADVS. SRI.T.A.SHAJI (SR.) SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **ADV.P.C.SASIDHARAN SC FOR CPAS, SRI.M.A.ASIF SPL.GP.** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.06.2019, ALONG WITH WA.4/2019, WA.5/2019, WA.9/2019, WA.10/2019, WA.14/2019, WA.120/2019, WA.156/2019, WA.160/2019, WA.161/2019, WA.188/2019,** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::3:: **WA.260/2019, WA.364/2019, WA.423/2019, WA.663/2019, WA.1018/2019, WA.1156/2019, WA.2350/2018, WA.2351/2018, WA.2353/2018, WA.2354/2018, WA.2380/2018, WA.2397/2018, WA.2399/2018, WA.2402/2018, WA.2410/2018, WA.2412/2018, WA.2413/2018, WA.2415/2018, WA.2420/2018, WA.2460/2018, WA.2462/2018, WA.2473/2018, WA.2480/2018, WA.2484/2018, WA.2485/2018, WA.2502/2018, WA.2512/2018, WA.2514/2018, THE COURT ON 03.07.2019, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::4:: **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF JULY 2019 / 12TH ASHADHA, 1941** ## **WA.No.4 of 2019** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 28773/2018 of HIGHCOURT** ## **APPELLANT:** ## **ABDUL MUHAMMED RASHEED** **AGED 41 YEARS S/O ABDUL SALAAM, LECTURER IN COMPUTER SCIENCE, CENTRE FOR PROFESSIONAL AND ADVANCED STUDIES(CPAS), SCHOOL OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, GANDHI NAGAR, KOTTAYAM-686 008.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.SHYAM KRISHNAN** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** - **2 MAHATHMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR , PRIYADARSINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM-686 560.** - **3 CENTRE FOR PROFESSIONAL AND ADVANCED STUDIES(CPAS) REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, SCHOOL OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, OPPOSITE KOTTAYAM MEDICAL COLLEGE,** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::5:: ## **GANDHI NAGAR.P.O, KOTTAYAM-686 008.** **BY ADV. SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **ADV.P.C.SASIDHARAN SC FOR CPAS, SRI.M.A.ASIF SPL.GP.** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.06.2019, ALONG WITH WA.1156/2019, WA.1018/2019, WA.260/2019, WA.156/2019, WA.120/2019, WA.188/2019, WA.161/2019, WA.2402/2018, WA.14/2019, WA.2380/2018, WA.2410/2018, WA.10/2019, WA.9/2019, WA.5/2019, WA.2462/2018, WA.2415/2018, WA.2412/2018, WA.2413/2018, WA.2420/2018, WA.2514/2018, WA.2485/2018, WA.2484/2018, WA.2512/2018, WA.2480/2018, WA.2473/2018, WA.2353/2018, WA.2354/2018, WA.2399/2018, WA.2351/2018, WA.2397/2018, WA.2350/2018, WA.2394/2018, AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 03.07.2019, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::6:: ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF JULY 2019 / 12TH ASHADHA, 1941** **WA.No.5 of 2019** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 17239/2018 of HIGHCOURT** ## **APPELLANT:** **DR. VALYOMANA A.G. AGED 57 YEARS W/O.M N KRISHNANKUTTY, READER, SCHOOL OF TECHNOLOGY AND APPLIED SCIENCES (STAS), CENTRE FOR PROFESSIONAL AND ADVANCED STUDIES M.G.UNIVERSITY REGIONAL CENTRE, EDAPPALLY, KOCHI-682024.** **BY ADV.SRI GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR) SMT.NISHA GEORGE** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS.P.O., KOTTAYAM-686560, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.** **2 CENTRE FOR PROFESSIONAL AND ADVANCED STUDIES, SCHOOL OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, GANDHI NAGAR, KOTTAYAM-686008, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.** **BY ADV. SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY SRI P.C. SASIDHARAN, SC. CPAS** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::7:: **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.06.2019, ALONG WITH WA.1156/2019, WA.1018/2019, WA.260/2019, WA.156/2019, WA.120/2019, WA.188/2019, WA.161/2019, WA.2402/2018, WA.14/2019, WA.2380/2018, WA.2410/2018, WA.10/2019, WA.9/2019, WA.4/2019, WA.2462/2018, WA.2415/2018, WA.2412/2018, WA.2413/2018, WA.2420/2018, WA.2514/2018, WA.2485/2018, WA.2484/2018, WA.2512/2018, WA.2480/2018, WA.2473/2018, WA.2353/2018, WA.2354/2018, WA.2399/2018, WA.2351/2018, WA.2397/2018, WA.2350/2018, WA.2394/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 03.07.2019, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::8:: ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN WEDNESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF JULY 2019 / 12TH ASHADHA, 1941** **WA.No.9 of 2019** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 28687/2018 of HIGHCOURT** ## **APPELLANTS:** **1 YAMUNA JOSE, AGED 39 YEARS ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, I N E, S ME, PUTHUPPALLY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.** - **2 ANU N.BABY ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR,I N E,S ME,MANIMALAKUNNU, KOOTHATTUKULAM,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** - **3 MANJU P.JOSEPH ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR,I N E,S ME,PALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.** - **4 SHIBI MATHEW** **LECTURER,INSTITUTE OF NURSING EDUCATION, PUTHUPALLY,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,PIN-686011.** - **5 SOMY SYRIAC, LECTURER,INSTITUTE OF NURSING EDUCATION,PALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,PIN-686575.** **6 SUMA C., LECTURER,INSTITUTE OF NURSING EDUCATION, PUTHUPALLY,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,PIN-686011.** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::9:: **7 RAGINA.J, LECTURER,INSTITUTE OF NUSRSING EDUCATION, NEDUMKANDAM,IDUKKI DISTRICT,PIN-685553.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.BABU CHERUKARA** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATI0N, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001.** - **2 CENTRE FOR PROFESSIONAL AND ADVANCED STUDIES, SCHOOL OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, GANDHI NAGAR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686008.** - **3 MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-680560.** - **4 BIJU S., LECTURER, INSTITUTE OF NURSING EDUCATION, CENTRE FOR PROFESSIONAL AND ADVANCED STUDIES, GANDHINAGAR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686008.** - **5 SUMI ZACHARIAS, INSTITUTE OF NURSING EDUCATION, MANIMALAKUNNU, KOOTHATTUKULAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-686662.** - **6 THUSHARA G., LECTURER, INSTITUTE OF NURSING EDUCATION, PATHANAMTHITTA -689645.** - **7 TREESAMMA PETER, LECTURER, INSTITUTE OF NURSING EDUCATION, GANDHINAGAR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686008.** - **8 SIMMY M. VARKEY, LECTURER, INSTITUTE OF NURSING EDUCATION, GANDHINAGAR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686008.** - **9 SAJINI JOY, LECTURER, INSTITUTE OF NURSING EDUCATION, NEDUMKANDAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT -685553.** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ## ::10:: **10 SAMPATH R., ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR CUM VICE PRINCIPAL, INSTITUTE OF NURSING EDUCATION, NEDUMKANDAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT685553.** **BY ADV. SRI.T.A. SHAJI (SR) SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY SPL.GP SRI M.A. ASIF SRI. P.C. SASIDHARAN, SC CPAS** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.06.2019, ALONG WITH WA.1156/2019, WA.1018/2019, WA.260/2019, WA.156/2019, WA.120/2019, WA.188/2019, WA.161/2019, WA.2402/2018, WA.14/2019, WA.2380/2018, WA.2410/2018, WA.10/2019, WA.5/2019, WA.4/2019, WA.2462/2018, WA.2415/2018, WA.2412/2018, WA.2413/2018, WA.2420/2018, WA.2514/2018, WA.2485/2018, WA.2484/2018, WA.2512/2018, WA.2480/2018, WA.2473/2018, WA.2353/2018, WA.2354/2018, WA.2399/2018, WA.2351/2018, WA.2397/2018, WA.2350/2018, WA.2394/2018, THE COURT ON 03.07.2019, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::11:: ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF JULY 2019 / 12TH ASHADHA, 1941** ## **WA.No.10 of 2019** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 29389/2018 of HIGHCOURT** ## **APPELLANTS:** |**1**|**SAPTHAMI R.S.,**| |---|---| ||**AGED 33 YEARS**| ||**LECTURER, INSTITUTE OF NURSING EDUCATION, SCHOOL**| ||**MEDICAL EDUCATION, CENTRE FOR PROFESSIONAL AND**| ||**ADVANCED STUDIES, GANDHINAGAR, KOTTAYAM, RESIDING**| ||**AT SREENILAYAM, KOOTTAPPANA TEMPLE ROAD,**| ||**NEYYATTINKARA, TRIVANDRUM-695121.**| |**2**|**DALIAMOL M.A.,**| ||**LECTURER, INSTITUTE OF NURSING EDUCATION, SCHOOL**| ||**MEDICAL EDUCATION, CENTRE FOR PROFESSIONAL AND**| ||**ADVANCED STUDIES, MANIMALAKKUNNU KOOTHATTUKULAM.**| |**3**|**SREEJA MOHAN,**| ||**LECTURER, CENTRE FOR PROFESSIONAL AND ADVANCED**| ||**STUDIES, GANDHINAGAR, KOTTAYAM.**| ||**BY ADV. SRI.BABU CHERUKARA**| ## **RESPONDENTS:** |**1**|**STATE OF KERALA,**| |---|---| ||**REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,**| ||**DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT**| ||**SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.**| |**2**|**MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY,**| ||**REPRESENTED BY IT'S REGISTRAR, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS**| ||**P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686560.**| W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::12:: **3 CENTRE FOR PROFESSIONAL AND ADVANCED STUDIES, SCHOOL OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, GANDHI NAGAR, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686 008, REPRESENTED BY IT'S DIRECTOR.** - **4 LEKSHMIPRIYA P.S.,** **LECTURER, INSTITUTE OF NURSING EDUCATION, SCHOOL MEDICAL EDUCATION, CENTRE FOR PROFESSIONAL AND ADVANCED STUDIES, GANDHINAGAR, KOTTAYAM, RESIDING AT THEKKANATTU HOUSE, KAROOR P.O., MUNDUPALAM, PALA, PIN-686 575.** - **5 NEENU JOSE,** **LECTURER, INSTITUTE OF NURSING EDUCATION, SCHOOL MEDICAL EDUCATION, PALA, HAVING PERMANENT ADDRESS ARACKAL HOUSE, KADAPPATTOOR P.O., PALA, KOTTAYAM686574.** - **6 SHAZIA NOORIN BINSYED MUSTHAFA,** **LECTURER, INSTITUTE OF NURSING EDUCATION, SCHOOL MEDICAL EDUCATION, PUTHUPPALLY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT NELLUMPARAMBIL HOUSE, VELLOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM-686501.** - **7 SIJI GEORGE,** **LECTURER, INSTITUTE OF NURSING EDUCATION, SCHOOL MEDICAL EDUCATION, CENTRE FOR PROFESSIONAL AND ADVANCED STUDIES, GANDHINAGAR, KOTTAYM, HAVING RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS, KARMEL HOUSE, MONIPPALLY P.O., KOTTAYAM-686636.** **BY ADV. SRI.T.A. SHAJI (SR)** **SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY SPL.GP SRI M.A. ASIF SRI. P.C. SASIDHARAN, SC CPAS** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.06.2019, ALONG WITH WA.1156/2019, WA.1018/2019, WA.260/2019, WA.156/2019, WA.120/2019, WA.188/2019, WA.161/2019, WA.2402/2018, WA.14/2019, WA.2380/2018, WA.2410/2018, WA.9/2019, WA.5/2019, WA.4/2019, WA.2462/2018, WA.2415/2018, WA.2412/2018, WA.2413/2018, WA.2420/2018, WA.2514/2018, WA.2485/2018, WA.2484/2018, WA.2512/2018, WA.2480/2018, WA.2473/2018, WA.2353/2018, WA.2354/2018, WA.2399/2018, WA.2351/2018, WA.2397/2018, WA.2350/2018, WA.2394/2018, THE COURT ON 03.07.2019, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::13:: ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** **& THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF JULY 2019 / 12TH ASHADHA, 1941** **WA.No.14 of 2019** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 11374/2018 of HIGHCOURT** ## **APPELLANT:** **NIRMALA V.,AGED 57 YEARS ARUKKUZHI HOUSE,PAZHAYANADU,KIZHAKKAMBALAM.P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683562.** **BY ADV. SRI GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR) SMT.NISHA GEORGE** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS.P.O,KOTTAYAM-686560 REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.** **2 CENTRE FOR PROFESSIONAL AND ADVANCED STUDIES, SCHOOL OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, GANDHI NAGAR,KOTTAYAM-686008,REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.** **BY ADV. SRI. T.A. SHAJI (SR) SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY SRI P C SASIDHARAN, SC, CPAS** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.06.2019, ALONG WITH WA.1156/2019, WA.1018/2019, WA.260/2019, WA.156/2019, WA.120/2019, WA.188/2019, WA.161/2019, WA.2402/2018, WA.2380/2018, WA.2410/2018, WA.10/2019, WA.9/2019, WA.5/2019, WA.4/2019, WA.2462/2018, WA.2415/2018, WA.2412/2018, WA.2413/2018, WA.2420/2018, WA.2514/2018, WA.2485/2018, WA.2484/2018, WA.2512/2018, WA.2480/2018, WA.2473/2018, WA.2353/2018, WA.2354/2018, WA.2399/2018, WA.2351/2018, WA.2397/2018, WA.2350/2018, WA.2394/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 03.07.2019, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::14:: ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF JULY 2019 / 12TH ASHADHA, 1941 WA.No.120 of 2019** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 26281/2017 of HIGHCOURT** ## **APPELLANTS:** - **1 SAJEESH KUMAR R. AGED 43 YEARS INSTRUCTOR GR.II, UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING MUTTOM, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI-685584.** - **2 KUNJUMON.K.K INSTRUCTOR GR.II UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING MUTTOM, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI-685584.** - **3 PRINCY VARGHESE, INSTRUCTOR GR.II UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING MUTTOM, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI-685584.** - **4 JAYARAJ.S.TRADE INSTRUCTOR GR.II,UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING MUTTOM, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI-685584.** - **5 SHAMEER.B, TRADE INSTRUCTOR GR.II,UNIVERSITY, COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING MUTTOM, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI685584.** - **6 JAYAKRISHNAN.P.R. INSTRUCTOR GR.II,UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING MUTTOM, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI-685584.** - **7 BABU.P.K. TRADE INSTRUCTOR GR.II,UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING MUTTOM, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI-685584.** - **8 RAJENDRAN.P.G. TRADE INSTRUCTOR GR.II,UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING MUTTOM, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI-685584.** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::15:: - **9 BINOI C MATHEW TRADE INSTRUCTOR GR.II,UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING MUTTOM, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI-685584.** **BY ADVS. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ KUM.A.ARUNA KUM.THULASI K. RAJ** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.** - **2 MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, P.O.KOTTAYAM-686560.** - **3 THE SYNDICATE, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY THE VICE CHANCELLOR, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS,P.O.KOTTAYAM-686560.** - **4 THE CO-ORDINATOR, UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION, UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION MAIN CENTRE, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS P.O.KOTTAYAM-686560.** - **5 CENTRE FOR PROFESSIONAL AND ADVANCES STUDIES, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, ARPOOKARA, KOTTAYAM686521.** **BY ADV. SRI. T.A SHAJI (SR) SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY SRI P.C. SASIDHARAN, SC, CPAS SRI. M A ASIF, SPL.GP** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.06.2019, ALONG WITH WA.1156/2019, WA.1018/2019, WA.260/2019, WA.156/2019, WA.188/2019, WA.161/2019, WA.2402/2018, WA.14/2019, WA.2380/2018, WA.2410/2018, WA.10/2019, WA.9/2019, WA.5/2019, WA.4/2019, WA.2462/2018, WA.2415/2018, WA.2412/2018, WA.2413/2018, WA.2420/2018, WA.2514/2018, WA.2485/2018, WA.2484/2018, WA.2512/2018, WA.2480/2018, WA.2473/2018, WA.2353/2018, WA.2354/2018, WA.2399/2018, WA.2351/2018, WA.2397/2018, WA.2350/2018, WA.2394/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 03.07.2019, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::16:: ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF JULY 2019 / 12TH ASHADHA, 1941 WA.No.156 of 2019** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 27411/2017 of HIGHCOURT** **APPELLANTS:** **1 DR.ABDUL HAKEEM.M.A, AGED 46 YEARS ASSISTANT PROFESSOR,UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING,THODUPUZHA-685587.** - **2 SIBU.P.M.LECTURER,UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, THODUPUZHA-685587.** - **3 BINDU BABY THOMAS, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR,UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING,THODUPUZHA-685587.** - **4 RAVIKUMAR,ASSISTANT PROFESSOR,UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING,THODUPUZHA-685587.** - **5 DR.LENY MATHEW,ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, THODUPUZHA-685587.** - **6 DR.JOSEPHINE GEORGE, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR,UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING,THODUPUZHA-685587.** - **7 DR.LETHAKUMARI.B,ASSISTANT PROFESSOR,UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING,THODUPUZHA-685587.** **BY ADVS. DR. S GOPAKUMARAN NAIR (SR) SRI.SOORAJ T.ELENJICKAL SMT.V.A.HARITHA SRI.C.R.SYAMKUMAR SRI.K.ARJUN VENUGOPAL SRI.P.A.MOHAMMED SHAH SRI.R.NANDAGOPAL SRI.SIDHARTH B PRASAD** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::17:: ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR,PRIYADARSHINI HILLS.P.O,KOTTAYAM-686560.** - **2 THE VICE CHANELLOR, THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY,KOTTAYAM-686560.** - **3 THE PRINCIPAL UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, THODUPUZHA-685587.** - **4 THE SYNDICATE, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY,REPRESENTED BYTHE VICE CHANCELLOR,M.G.UNIVERSITY,KOTTAYAM-686560.** - **5 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION,GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.** - **6 ADDL.R6-THE DIRECTOR, CENTRE FOR PROFESSIONAL AND ADVANCED STUDIES, HEAD OFFICE,SCHOOL OF MEDICAL EDUCATION(ANNEX), ARPOOKARA,GANDHI NAGAR,KOTTAYAM,PIN-686008. BY ADV. SRI. T.A SHAJI (SR) SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY SRI P.C. SASIDHARAN, SC, CPAS SRI. M A ASIF, SPL.GP** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.06.2019, ALONG WITH WA.1156/2019, WA.1018/2019, WA.260/2019, WA.120/2019, WA.188/2019, WA.161/2019, WA.2402/2018, WA.14/2019, WA.2380/2018, WA.2410/2018, WA.10/2019, WA.9/2019, WA.5/2019, WA.4/2019, WA.2462/2018, WA.2415/2018, WA.2412/2018, WA.2413/2018, WA.2420/2018, WA.2514/2018, WA.2485/2018, WA.2484/2018, WA.2512/2018, WA.2480/2018, WA.2473/2018, WA.2353/2018, WA.2354/2018, WA.2399/2018, WA.2351/2018, WA.2397/2018, WA.2350/2018, WA.2394/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 03.07.2019, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::18:: ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF JULY 2019 / 12TH ASHADHA, 1941** **WA.No.160 of 2019** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 25981/2017 of HIGHCOURT** ## **APPELLANT:** **SHERLYMOL ANTONY AGED 58 YEARS ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, INSTITUTE OF NURSING EDUCATION, GANDHI NAGAR, KOTTAYAM-686 008** **BY ADVS. SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS (SR.) SRI.ENOCH DAVID SIMON JOEL GEORGE A CHERIAN SRI.LEO LUKOSE SRI.RONY JOSE SMT.SUZANNE KURIAN** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 THE DIRECTOR SCHOOL OF MEDICAL INSTITUTION, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI NAGAR, KOTTAYAM-686 560 2 REGISTRAR MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI NAGAR, KOTTAYAM-686 560 3 MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI NAGAR, KOTTAYAM-686 560, REPRESENTED BY REGISTRAR.** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::19:: **4 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001** **5 CENTRE FOR PROFESSIONAL AND ADVANCED STUDIES SCHOOL MEDICAL EDUCATION, GANDHI NAGAR, KOTTAYAM686 008, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.** **BY ADV. SRI. T.A SHAJI (SR) SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY SRI P.C. SASIDHARAN, SC, CPAS SRI. M A ASIF, SPL.GP** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.06.2019, ALONG WITH WA.663/2019, WA.364/2019, WA.423/2019, WA.2460/2018, WA.2502/2018 WA 2394/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 03.07.2019, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::20:: ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF JULY 2019 / 12TH ASHADHA, 1941** **WA.No.161 of 2019** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 11185/2018 of HIGHCOURT** ## **APPELLANTS:** **SHERLYMOL ANTONY AGED 58 YEARS ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, CENTRE FOR PROFESSIONAL AND ADVANCED STUDIES, M.G UNIVERSITY CAMPUS, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM 686 560.** **BY ADVS. SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS (SR.) SRI.ENOCH DAVID SIMON JOEL** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** |**1**|**DIRECTOR**| |---|---| ||**CENTRE FOR PROFESSION AND ADVANCED STUDIES, M.G**| ||**UNIVERSITY CAMPUS,**| ||**PRIYADARSHINI HILLS,**| ||**KOTTAYAM 686 560.**| |**2**|**MAHATAMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY,**| ||**PRIYADARSHINI HILLS,**| ||**KOTTAYM 686 560,**| ||**REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.**| W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::21:: - **3 REGISTRAR, MAHATAMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, KOTTAYM 686 560.** **4 JOINT DIRECTOR, CENTRE FOR PROFESSIONAL AND ADVANCED STUDIES, SCHOOL MEDICAL EDUCATION, MAHATAMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, GANDHI NAGAR, KOTTAYAM 686 008.** **BY ADVS. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, CPAS SRI.T.A. SHAJI (SR) SRI. SURIN GEORGE IPE, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.06.2019, ALONG WITH WA.1156/2019, WA.1018/2019, WA.260/2019, WA.156/2019, WA.120/2019, WA.188/2019, WA.2402/2018, WA.14/2019, WA.2380/2018, WA.2410/2018, WA.10/2019, WA.9/2019, WA.5/2019, WA.4/2019, WA.2462/2018, WA.2415/2018, WA.2412/2018, WA.2413/2018, WA.2420/2018, WA.2514/2018, WA.2485/2018, WA.2484/2018, WA.2512/2018, WA.2480/2018, WA.2473/2018, WA.2353/2018, WA.2354/2018, WA.2399/2018, WA.2351/2018, WA.2397/2018, WA.2350/2018, WA.2394/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 03.07.2019, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::22:: ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN WEDNESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF JULY 2019 / 12TH ASHADHA, 1941 WA.No.188 of 2019** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 32363/2017 of HIGHCOURT** ## **APPELLANTS:** **1 JESSY JACOB, AGED 44 YEARS SENIOR LECTURER, DEPARTMENT OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES, SCHOOL OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, PUTHUPALLY, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, KOTTAYAM. 2 BINDU.K, SENIOR LECTURER, DEPARTMENT OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES, SCHOOL OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, PUTHUPALLY, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, KOTTAYAM.** **BY ADVS. SRI.K.P.SUDHEER SMT.C.K.SHERIN** ## **RESPONDENTS:** |**1**|**STATE OF KERALA,**| |---|---| ||**DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT**| ||**SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001,REPRESENTED**| ||**BY ITS SECRETARY.**| |**2**|**MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY,**| ||**PRIYADARSHINI HILLS P.O.KOTTAYAM, PIN 686 560,**| ||**REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.**| W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::23:: **3 THE CENTRE FOR PROFESSIONAL AND ADVANCED STUDIES, SCHOOL OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, GANDHI NAGAR, KOTTAYAM- 686 008, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.** **BY ADV. SRI. T.A SHAJI (SR) SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY SRI P.C. SASIDHARAN, SC, CPAS SRI. M A ASIF, SPL.GP** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.06.2019, ALONG WITH WA.1156/2019, WA.1018/2019, WA.260/2019, WA.156/2019, WA.120/2019, WA.161/2019, WA.2402/2018, WA.14/2019, WA.2380/2018, WA.2410/2018, WA.10/2019, WA.9/2019, WA.5/2019, WA.4/2019, WA.2462/2018, WA.2415/2018, WA.2412/2018, WA.2413/2018, WA.2420/2018, WA.2514/2018, WA.2485/2018, WA.2484/2018, WA.2512/2018, WA.2480/2018, WA.2473/2018, WA.2353/2018, WA.2354/2018, WA.2399/2018, WA.2351/2018, WA.2397/2018, WA.2350/2018, WA.2394/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 03.07.2019, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::24:: **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF JULY 2019 / 12TH ASHADHA, 1941 WA.No.260 of 2019** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 36309/2017 of HIGHCOURT** ## **APPELLANT:** **REETHAMMA N.T., AGED 54 YEARS MULAMOOTTIL HOUSE, VEROOR P.O., CHETHIPUZHA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS. SRI.JOMY GEORGE SMT.A.MINI JOSEPH SMT.LIZA POWELL SRI.DEEPAK MOHAN** ## **RESPONDENTS:** |**1**|**STATE OF KERALA,**| |---|---| ||**REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,**| ||**DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT**| ||**SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.**| |**2**|**MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY,**| ||**REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS**| ||**P.O., KOTTAYAM-686560.**| |**3**|**THE DIRECTOR,**| ||**SCHOOL OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, MAHATMA GANDHI**| ||**UNIVERSITY, KOTTAYAM-686560.**| W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::25:: **4 THE CENTRE FOR PROFESSIONAL AND ADVANCED STUDIES, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, SCHOOL OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, GANDHI NAGAR, KOTTAYAM-686008.** **BY ADV. SRI. T.A SHAJI (SR) SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY SRI P.C. SASIDHARAN, SC, CPAS SRI. M A ASIF, SPL.GP** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.06.2019, ALONG WITH WA.1156/2019, WA.1018/2019, WA.156/2019, WA.120/2019, WA.188/2019, WA.161/2019, WA.2402/2018, WA.14/2019, WA.2380/2018, WA.2410/2018, WA.10/2019, WA.9/2019, WA.5/2019, WA.4/2019, WA.2462/2018, WA.2415/2018, WA.2412/2018, WA.2413/2018, WA.2420/2018, WA.2514/2018, WA.2485/2018, WA.2484/2018, WA.2512/2018, WA.2480/2018, WA.2473/2018, WA.2353/2018, WA.2354/2018, WA.2399/2018, WA.2351/2018, WA.2397/2018, WA.2350/2018, WA.2394/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 03.07.2019, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::26:: ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF JULY 2019 / 12TH ASHADHA, 1941** **WA.No.364 of 2019** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 11414/2018 of HIGHCOURT** ## **APPELLANT:** **DR.SHIBU PUTHENPARAMBIL AGED 44 YEARS LECTURER IN HEALTH MANAGEMENT, DIVISIONAL OF HEALTH MANAGEMENT SCHOOL OF MEDICAL EDUCATION(SME), MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERISITY, GANDHINAGAR P.O, KOTTAYAM PIN-686608.** **BY ADV. SRI.BABU VARGHESE (SR) SRI.C.V.ALEXANDER** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS P.O, KOTTAYAM - 686008. 2 THE VICE CHANCELLOR, CHAIRMAN OF THE SYNDICATE, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS P.O, KOTTAYAM686008. 3 THE CENTRE FOR PROFESSIONAL AND ADVANCED STUDIES, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, SCHOOL OF MEDICAL EDUCATION(ANNEX), AROPOORKARA, GANDHI NAGAR, KOTTAYAM-686008.** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::27:: **4 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.** **BY ADV. SRI. T.A SHAJI (SR) SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY SRI P.C. SASIDHARAN, SC, CPAS SRI. M A ASIF, SPL.GP** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.06.2019, ALONG WITH WA.663/2019, WA.160/2019, WA.423/2019, WA.2460/2018, WA.2502/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 03.07.2019, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::28:: ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN WEDNESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF JULY 2019 / 12TH ASHADHA, 1941** **WA.No.423 of 2019** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 26882/2017 of HIGHCOURT** ## **APPELLANTS:** **1 ABDUL MUHAMMED RASHEED, AGED 41 YEARS LECTURER IN COMPUTER SCIENCE, SCHOOL OF TECHNOLOGY AND APPLIED SCIENCE, PATHANAMTHITTA.** - **2 REMA K, LECTURER IN COMPUTER SCIENCE, SCHOOL OF TECHNOLOGY AND APPLIED SCIENCE, PATHANAMTHITTA.** - **3 RAJASREE G, LECTURER, SCHOOL OF TECHNOLOGY AND APPLIED SCIENCE, PATHANAMTHITTA.** - **4 RADHYA V.V, LECTURER, SCHOOL OF TECHNOLOGY AND APPLIED SCIENCE, EDAPPALLY,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT** **BY ADVS. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN (SR.) SRI.K.SUDHINKUMAR SRI.MUHAMMED IBRAHIM ABDUL SAMAD SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) SRI.SABU PULLAN SRI.S.K.ADHITHYAN SRI.S.VIBHEESHANAN** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::29:: ## **RESPONDENTS:** |**1**|**STATE OF KERALA,**| |---|---| ||**REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER**| ||**EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT , SECRETARIAT,**| ||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.**| |**2**|**MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY,**| ||**REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, PRIYADARSINI HILLS**| ||**P.O.ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM-686 560**| |**3**|**THE REGISTRAR,**| ||**MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSINI HILLS**| ||**P.O.ATHIRAMPUZHA,KOTTAYAM-686 560**| |**4**|**THE DIRECTOR,**| ||**SCHOOL OF TECHNOLOGY AND APPLIED SCIENCE,**| ||**EDAPPALLY, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI 682 024.**| |**5**|**THE DIRECTOR,**| ||**SCHOOL OF TECHNOLOGY AND APPLIED SCIENCES,**| ||**PATHANAMTHITTA-689 645.**| |**6**|**CENTRE FOR PROFESSIONAL AND ADVANCE STUDIES,**| ||**REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, SCHOOL OF MEDICAL**| ||**EDUCATION, GANDHI NAGAR, KOTTAYAM-686 008**| ||**BY ADV. SRI. T.A SHAJI (SR)**| ||**SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY**| ||**SRI P.C. SASIDHARAN, SC, CPAS**| ||**SRI. M A ASIF, SPL.GP**| **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.06.2019, ALONG WITH WA.663/2019, WA.160/2019, WA.364/2019, WA.2460/2018, WA.2502/2018 WA 2394/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 03.07.2019, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::30:: ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** **&** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF JULY 2019 / 12TH ASHADHA, 1941 WA.No.663 of 2019** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 29715/2017 of HIGHCOURT** ## **APPELLANTS:** - **1 THIRUMANAS K R, AGED 34 YEARS LECTURER IN MECHANICAL ENGINEERING, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, MUTTAM, THODUPUZHA,IDUKKI, DISTRICT.** - **2 SAJITH K, LECTURER IN COMPUTER SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, MUTTAM, THODUPUZHA IDUKKI, DISTRICT.** - **3 LINI ABRAHAM, LECTURER IN COMPUTER SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, MUTTAM, THODUPUZHA,IDUKKI, DISTRICT.** - **4 JINCY ANNIE. V.V. LECTURER IN COMPUTER SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, MUTTAM, THODUPUZHA,IDUKKI, DISTRICT.** - **5 RAHUMATH BEEVI A, LECTURER IN COMPUTER SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, MUTTAM, THODUPUZHA,IDUKKI, DISTRICT.** - **6 BICHU VIJAYAN, LECTURER IN COMPUTER SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, MUTTAM, THODUPUZHA,IDUKKI, DISTRICT.** - **7 RAGHUNATH E.V. LECTURER IN COMPUTER SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, MUTTAM, THODUPUZHA ,IDUKKI,DISTRICT.** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::31:: - **8 JITHY P.K, LECTURER IN COMPUTER SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, MUTTAM, THODUPUZHA,IDUKKI, DISTRICT.** - **9 RAKHI ROY J, LECTURER IN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY,MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, MUTTAM, THODUPUZHA,IDUKKI DISTRICT.** - **10 SHEEBA JOHN, LECTURER IN POLYMER ENGINEERING, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, MUTTAM, THODUPUZHA ,IDUKKI DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN (SR.) SRI.K.SUDHINKUMAR SRI.MUHAMMED IBRAHIM ABDUL SAMAD SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) SRI.S.K.ADHITHYAN SRI.S.VIBHEESHANAN** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA,** **REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGH EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** - **2 MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, PRIYADARSINI HILLS P.O.ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM-686 560** - **3 THE REGISTRAR, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSINI HILLS P.O.ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM 686 560** - **4 CENTRE FOR PROFESSIONAL AND ADVANCE STUDIES, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, SCHOOL OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, GANDHI NAGAR, KOTTAYAM-686 008** **BY ADV. SRI. T.A SHAJI (SR) SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY SRI P.C. SASIDHARAN, SC, CPAS SRI. M A ASIF, SPL.GP** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.06.2019, ALONG WITH WA.160/2019, WA.364/2019, WA.423/2019, WA.2460/2018, WA.2502/2018 WA.2394/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 03.07.2019, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::32:: ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF JULY 2019 / 12TH ASHADHA, 1941 WA.No.1018 of 2019** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 27941/2017 of HIGHCOURT** ## **APPELLANTS:** - **1 RAJEEVNATH.K.R AGED 43 YEARS** - **LECTURER ON CONTRACT, UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION, ELANTHOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA.** - **2 DR.A.MANJU, LECTURER ON CONTRACT, UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION, ELANTHOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA.** - **3 SHEEJA S,** - **LECTURER IN MALAYALAM, UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION, ERATTUPETTA.** - **4 SAMEERA.K, LECTURER ON CONTRACT, UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION, ERATTUPETTA.** - **5 PAUSY V.A LECTURER ON CONTRACT, UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION, ERATUPETTA.** - **6 HARIPRIYA** **LECTURER ON CONTRACT, UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION, THRIPPUNITHURA** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::33:: **BY ADVS. SRI.P.SREEKUMAR SMT.V.A.HARITHA SRI.K.ARJUN VENUGOPAL SRI.R.NANDAGOPAL SRI.SIDHARTH B PRASAD** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** - **2 MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, PRIYADARSINI HILLS P.O.ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM-686 560** - **3 THE REGISTRAR, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSINI HILLS P.O.ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM-686 560** - **4 CENTRE FOR PROFESSIONAL AND ADVANCE STUDIES, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, SCHOOL OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, GANDHI NAGAR, KOTTAYAM- 686 008** **BY ADV. SRI. T.A SHAJI (SR) SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY SRI P.C. SASIDHARAN, SC, CPAS SRI. M A ASIF, SPL.GP** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.06.2019, ALONG WITH WA.1156/2019, WA.260/2019, WA.156/2019, WA.120/2019, WA.188/2019, WA.161/2019, WA.2402/2018, WA.14/2019, WA.2380/2018, WA.2410/2018, WA.10/2019, WA.9/2019, WA.5/2019, WA.4/2019, WA.2462/2018, WA.2415/2018, WA.2412/2018, WA.2413/2018, WA.2420/2018, WA.2514/2018, WA.2485/2018, WA.2484/2018, WA.2512/2018, WA.2480/2018, WA.2473/2018, WA.2353/2018, WA.2354/2018, WA.2399/2018, WA.2351/2018, WA.2397/2018, WA.2350/2018, WA.2394/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 03.07.2019, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::34:: ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN WEDNESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF JULY 2019 / 12TH ASHADHA, 1941 WA.No.1156 of 2019** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 26424/2018 of HIGHCOURT** ## **APPELLANTS:** **SINDHU MATHEW, AGED 41 YEARS W/O.JOICE ABRAHAM, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, INSTITUTE OF NURSING EDUCATION (SCHOOL OF MEDICAL EDUCATION), PUTHUPPALLY P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT CHERPUNKAL, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686 584.** **BY ADV. SRI.T.C.GOVINDA SWAMY** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, STATE SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001.** - **2 THE DIRECTOR, CENTRE FOR PROFESSIONAL AND ADVANCED STUDIES (CPAS), GANDHINAGAR, ARPOOKARA, KOTTAYAM- 686 008.** - **3 THE DIRECTOR, SCHOOL OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, GANDHINAGAR, ARPOOKARA, KOTTAYAM - 686 008.** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::35:: **4 THE REGISTRAR, MAHATMA GANDHI (MG) UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS P.O., KOTTAYAM - 686 560.** **BY ADV. SRI. T.A SHAJI (SR) SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY SRI P.C. SASIDHARAN, SC, CPAS SRI. M A ASIF, SPL.GP** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.06.2019, ALONG WITH WA.1018/2019, WA.260/2019, WA.156/2019, WA.120/2019, WA.188/2019, WA.161/2019, WA.2402/2018, WA.14/2019, WA.2380/2018, WA.2410/2018, WA.10/2019, WA.9/2019, WA.5/2019, WA.4/2019, WA.2462/2018, WA.2415/2018, WA.2412/2018, WA.2413/2018, WA.2420/2018, WA.2514/2018, WA.2485/2018, WA.2484/2018, WA.2512/2018, WA.2480/2018, WA.2473/2018, WA.2353/2018, WA.2354/2018, WA.2399/2018, WA.2351/2018, WA.2397/2018, WA.2350/2018, WA.2394/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 03.07.2019, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::36:: ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN WEDNESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF JULY 2019 / 12TH ASHADHA, 1941 WA.No.2350 of 2018 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 26037/2017 of HIGHCOURT** ## **APPELLANTS:** |**1**|**PUSHPA R.**| |---|---| ||**AGED 51 YEARS**| ||**KIZHAKKEDATHU HOUSE, PARIYARAM P.O., PUTHUPALLY,**| ||**KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.**| |**2**|**ABDUL SALAM.N.**| ||**ASHIYANA, KLRA 37 E, MUNDAKKAL EAST, KOLLAM**| ||**DISTRICT.**| |**3**|**AMBILI.A.**| ||**NANDANAM, ARPOOKKARA EAST P.O., VARIMUTTOM P.O.,**| ||**KOTTAYAM- 686 008.**| |**4**|**SHEENA.P.V.**| ||**ODASSERY HOUSE, MALA P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT.**| |**5**|**PUSHKALA N.R.**| ||**VATTAPPARAMBIL SIVADAM, MOOKKANNOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM**| ||**DISTRICT.**| |**6**|**LATHA.P.S.**| ||**POLIYEDATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHEROOR P.O., TRICHUR**| ||**DISTRICT.**| |**7**|**SHEEBA C.N.**| ||**CHERUPILLIL HOUSE, EDAYAPPURAM, ALUVA - 683 101,**| W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::37:: ## **ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** **8 SONSY MATHEW KIDARATHIL (HOUSE), KOZHUVANAL P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.) SMT. NISHA GEORGE** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **1 STATE OF KERALA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2 MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY PRIYADARSHINI HILLS P.O., KOTTAYAM - 686 560, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. 3 CENTRE FOR PROFESSIONAL AND ADVANCED STUDIES SCHOOL OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, GANDHI NAGAR, KOTTAYAM - 686 008, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.** **BY ADV. SRI. T.A SHAJI (SR) SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY SRI P.C. SASIDHARAN, SC, CPAS SRI. M A ASIF, SPL.GP** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.06.2019, ALONG WITH WA.1156/2019, WA.1018/2019, WA.260/2019, WA.156/2019, WA.120/2019, WA.188/2019, WA.161/2019, WA.2402/2018, WA.14/2019, WA.2380/2018, WA.2410/2018, WA.10/2019, WA.9/2019, WA.5/2019, WA.4/2019, WA.2462/2018, WA.2415/2018, WA.2412/2018, WA.2413/2018, WA.2420/2018, WA.2514/2018, WA.2485/2018, WA.2484/2018, WA.2512/2018, WA.2480/2018, WA.2473/2018, WA.2353/2018, WA.2354/2018, WA.2399/2018, WA.2351/2018, WA.2397/2018, WA.2394/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 03.07.2019, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::38:: ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN WEDNESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF JULY 2019 / 12TH ASHADHA, 1941 WA.No.2351 of 2018** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 38284/2017 of HIGHCOURT** ## **APPELLANTS:** |**1**|**DR. JOJI ANCHANATTU**| |---|---| ||**AGED 46 YEARS**| ||**SENIOR GRADE LECTURER, PRESENTLY REGIONAL DIRECTOR**| ||**(IN-CHARGE), SCHOOL OF TECHNOLOGY AND APPLIED**| ||**SCIENCES (STAS), REGIONAL CENTRE, PATHANAMTHITTA.**| |**2**|**DR.S.KRISHNAKUMAR**| ||**SENIOR GRADE LECTURER, STAS, REGIONAL CENTRE,**| ||**EDAPPALLY.**| |**3**|**ELDHOSE.N.V.**| ||**SENIOR GRADE LECTURER, STAS, REGIONAL CENTRE,**| ||**EDAPPALLY.**| ||**BY ADVS.**| ||**SRI.BABU VARGHESE (SR.)**| ||**SRI.C.V.ALEXANDER**| |**RESPONDENTS**<br>**:**|**RESPONDENTS**<br>**:**|| |---|---|---| |**1**||**THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY**| |||**REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS**| |||**P.O., KOTTAYAM - 686 560.**| W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::39:: **2 THE SYNDICATE OF THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN-VICE-CHANCELLOR, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARASHINI HILLS P.O., KOTTAYAM - 686 560.** **3 CENTRE FOR PROFESSIONAL AND ADVANCED STUDIES REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, SCHOOL OF TECHNOLOGY AND APPLIED SCIENCES (STAS), GANDHI NAGAR, KOTTAYAM - 686008.** **4 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.** **BY ADV. SRI. T.A SHAJI (SR) SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY SRI P.C. SASIDHARAN, SC, CPAS SRI. M A ASIF, SPL.GP** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.06.2019, ALONG WITH WA.1156/2019, WA.1018/2019, WA.260/2019, WA.156/2019, WA.120/2019, WA.188/2019, WA.161/2019, WA.2402/2018, WA.14/2019, WA.2380/2018, WA.2410/2018, WA.10/2019, WA.9/2019, WA.5/2019, WA.4/2019, WA.2462/2018, WA.2415/2018, WA.2412/2018, WA.2413/2018, WA.2420/2018, WA.2514/2018, WA.2485/2018, WA.2484/2018, WA.2512/2018, WA.2480/2018, WA.2473/2018, WA.2353/2018, WA.2354/2018, WA.2399/2018, WA.2397/2018, WA.2350/2018, WA.2394/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 03.07.2019, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::40:: ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN WEDNESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF JULY 2019 / 12TH ASHADHA, 1941** ## **WA.No.2353 of 2018** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 22406/2017 of HIGHCOURT** ## **APPELLANTS:** **1 DR. SUNIL JOB K.A AGED 50 YEARS LECTURER IN GENERAL EDUCATION,UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION,VAIKOM,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT686141,RESIDING AT KALAPURAKKAL,HOUSE NO.1/1797,CHIRATTAPALAM,FORT KOCHI-682001. 2 DR.LALAMANI.P LECTURER IN PHYSICAL SCIENCE,UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION,ELANTHOOR,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689643,RESIDING AT SANATHANAM, KOTTATHALA.P.O,KOTTARAKKARA,KOLLAM DISTRICT-691518. 3 DR.ANILA ANNA MANI, LECTURER IN MATHEMATICS,UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION,KUDAMALOOR,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT686017,RESIDING AT KIZHAKKEKLARA HOUSE,PAYYAPPADY.P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686011.** **4 PEARLY JACOB LECTURER IN ENGLISH,UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION,THOTTAKAD, CHAMPAKKARA.P.O,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686540,RESIDING AT FLAT NO.310 C,OLLAPALLIL HOMES,KALATHILPADY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686010.** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::41:: ## **5 SHAJI.R.K,** **LECTURER IN MATHEMATICS,UNIVERSITY OIF COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION,KUMILY, AMARAVATHY.P.O,IDUKKI DISTRICT-685509, RESIDING AT SREERAGAM,AMARAVATHY.P.O, KUMILY,IDUKKI DISTRICT-695509.** - **6 ROSILY.N.P** - **LECTURER IN NATURAL SCIENCE,UNIVERSITY OF COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION, MUVATTUPUZHA,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-686661,RESIDING AT POONELIL(H),PULLUVAZHI.P.O,KEEZHILLAM(VIA),ERNAKULA M-683541.,** - **7 THARA.K.S** - **LECTURER IN MALAYALAM,UNIVERSITY OF COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION,PAIPPAD, CHANGANACHERRY,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686537,RESIDING AT THOPPIL,KALLUMALA.P.O, MAVELIKARA,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-690110.** **8 ANNAMMA PHILIPOSE, LECTURER IN ENGLISH,UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION,ELANTHOOR,PATHANAMTHTA -680643,RESIDING AT MATTACHAL VALIAPARAMPIL,KARAKKAL.P.O,THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689108.** **BY ADVS. SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN SRI.DEEPU LAL MOHAN** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.** - **2 MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS.P.O,ATHIRAMPUZHA,KOTAYAM.** - **3 THE SYNDICATE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY,REPRESENTED BY THE VICE CHANCELLOR,PRIYARADSHINI HILLS.P.O,ATHIRAMPUZHA,KOTTAYAM-686560.** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::42:: **4 THE CO-ORDINATOR, UNIVERSITY OF COLLEGES OF TEACHER EDUCATION, UNIVERSITY COLLEGES OF TEACHER EDUCATION MAIN CENTRE, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSINI HILLS P.O., ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM-686560.** **5 CENTRE FOR PROFESSIONAL AND ADVANCED STUDIES, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, ARPOOKKARA, KOTTAYAM21.** **BY ADV. SRI. T.A SHAJI (SR) SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY SRI P.C. SASIDHARAN, SC, CPAS SRI. M A ASIF, SPL.GP** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.06.2019, ALONG WITH WA.1156/2019, WA.1018/2019, WA.260/2019, WA.156/2019, WA.120/2019, WA.188/2019, WA.161/2019, WA.2402/2018, WA.14/2019, WA.2380/2018, WA.2410/2018, WA.10/2019, WA.9/2019, WA.5/2019, WA.4/2019, WA.2462/2018, WA.2415/2018, WA.2412/2018, WA.2413/2018, WA.2420/2018, WA.2514/2018, WA.2485/2018, WA.2484/2018, WA.2512/2018, WA.2480/2018, WA.2473/2018, WA.2354/2018, WA.2399/2018, WA.2351/2018, WA.2397/2018, WA.2350/2018, WA.2394/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 03.07.2019, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::43:: ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF JULY 2019 / 12TH ASHADHA, 1941 WA.No.2354 of 2018** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 38283/2017 of HIGHCOURT** ## **APPELLANT/S:** **DR. BIJAMMA THOMAS AGED 46 YEARS LECTURER IN MATHEMATICS, SCHOOL OF TECHNOLOGY AND APPLIED SCIENCES(STAS), MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, MALLASSERY PULLARIKUNNU CAMPUS, KOTTAYAM-686560.** **BY ADVS. SRI.BABU VARGHESE (SR.) SRI.C.V.ALEXANDER** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS.P.O., KOTTAYAM-686560. 2 THE SYNDICATE OF THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMNA-VICE CHANCELLOR, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS.P.O., KOTTAYAM-686560.** **3 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::44:: **4 CENTRAL FOR PROFESIONAL AND ADVANCED STUDIES, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, SCHOOL OF TECHNOLOGY AND APPLIED SCIENCES(STAS), GANDHI NAGAR, KOTTAYAM686008.** **BY ADV. SRI. T.A SHAJI (SR) SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY SRI P.C. SASIDHARAN, SC, CPAS SRI. M A ASIF, SPL.GP** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.06.2019, ALONG WITH WA.1156/2019, WA.1018/2019, WA.260/2019, WA.156/2019, WA.120/2019, WA.188/2019, WA.161/2019, WA.2402/2018, WA.14/2019, WA.2380/2018, WA.2410/2018, WA.10/2019, WA.9/2019, WA.5/2019, WA.4/2019, WA.2462/2018, WA.2415/2018, WA.2412/2018, WA.2413/2018, WA.2420/2018, WA.2514/2018, WA.2485/2018, WA.2484/2018, WA.2512/2018, WA.2480/2018, WA.2473/2018, WA.2353/2018, WA.2399/2018, WA.2351/2018, WA.2397/2018, WA.2350/2018, WA.2394/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 03.07.2019, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::45:: ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF JULY 2019 / 12TH ASHADHA, 1941 WA.No.2380 of 2018** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 35918/2017 of HIGHCOURT** ## **APPELLANT:** **P.V.ANILKUMAR AGED 50 YEARS** **LECTURER, SCHOOL OF TECHNOLOGY APPLIES SCIENCE, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, KOTTAYAM, RESIDING AT 'VAISHNAVI', KUMARANALLOOR-P.O., KOTTAYAM DIST.** **BY ADVS. SRI.N.DHARMADAN (SR.) SMT.D.P.RENU** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT.EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.** - **2 THE SOCIETY REGISTERED IN THE NAME AND STYLE 'CENTRE FOR PROFESSIONAL AND ADVANCE STUDIES' UNDER THE M.G.UNIVERSITY, KOTTAYAM, RE.BY ITS DIRECTOR686580.** - **3 MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR-686580.** - **4 VICE CHANCELLOR, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERISTY KOTTAYAM-686580.** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::46:: **5 SYNDICATE OF M.G.UNIVERSITY, REP. BY THE VICE CHANCELLOR, THE CHAIRMAN OF THE SYNDICATE, M.G.UNIVERSITY, KOTTAYAM-686580.** **BY ADV. SRI. T.A SHAJI (SR) SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY SRI P.C. SASIDHARAN, SC, CPAS SRI. M A ASIF, SPL.GP** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.06.2019, ALONG WITH WA.1156/2019, WA.1018/2019, WA.260/2019, WA.156/2019, WA.120/2019, WA.188/2019, WA.161/2019, WA.2402/2018, WA.14/2019, WA.2410/2018, WA.10/2019, WA.9/2019, WA.5/2019, WA.4/2019, WA.2462/2018, WA.2415/2018, WA.2412/2018, WA.2413/2018, WA.2420/2018, WA.2514/2018, WA.2485/2018, WA.2484/2018, WA.2512/2018, WA.2480/2018, WA.2473/2018, WA.2353/2018, WA.2354/2018, WA.2399/2018, WA.2351/2018, WA.2397/2018, WA.2350/2018, WA.2394/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 03.07.2019, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::47:: ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF JULY 2019 / 12TH ASHADHA, 1941 WA.No.2397 of 2018** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 21861/2017 of HIGHCOURT** **APPELLANTS: 1 DR.K.SHREEKRISHNA KUMAR AGED 54 YEARS REGIONAL DIRECTOR, SCHOOL OF TECHNOLOGY AND APPLIED SCIENCES, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PULLARIKKUNU CAMPUS, KOTTAYAM. 2 DR.THOMASKUTTY MATHEW READER, SCHOOL OF TECHNOLOGY AND APPLIED SCIENCES,MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, EDAPALLY, KOCHI-682 024. 3 DR.BINDU K. READER, SCHOOL OF TECHNOLOGY AND APPLIED SCIENCES, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PULLARIKKUNNU CAMPUS, KOTTAYAM 4 DR.VALYOMANA A.G. READER, SCHOOL OF TECHNOLOGY AND APPLIED SCIENCE, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PULLARIKKUNU CAMPUS, KOTTAYAM-686 041. 5 SRI SANU THOMAS, LECTURER (SELECTION GRADE), SCHOOL OF TECHNOLOGY AND APPLIED SCIENCES), MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PULLARIKKUNNU CAMPUS, KOTTAYAM 686 041** **BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.) SMT. NISHA GEORGE** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::48:: ## **RESPONDENTS:** |**1**|**STATE OF KERALA**| |---|---| ||**REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,**| ||**DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT**| ||**SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.**| |**2**|**MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY**| ||**REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS**| ||**P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 560.**| |**3**|**CENTRE FOR PROFESSIONAL AND ADVANCED STUDIES**| ||**SCHOOL OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, GANDHI NAGAR,**| ||**KOTTAYAM-686 008, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.**| ||**BY ADV.**<br>**SRI. T.A SHAJI (SR)**| ||**SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY**| ||**SRI P.C. SASIDHARAN, SC, CPAS**| ||**SRI. M A ASIF, SPL.GP**| **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.06.2019, ALONG WITH WA.1156/2019, WA.1018/2019, WA.260/2019, WA.156/2019, WA.120/2019, WA.188/2019, WA.161/2019, WA.2402/2018, WA.14/2019, WA.2380/2018, WA.2410/2018, WA.10/2019, WA.9/2019, WA.5/2019, WA.4/2019, WA.2462/2018, WA.2415/2018, WA.2412/2018, WA.2413/2018, WA.2420/2018, WA.2514/2018, WA.2485/2018, WA.2484/2018, WA.2512/2018, WA.2480/2018, WA.2473/2018, WA.2353/2018, WA.2354/2018, WA.2399/2018, WA.2351/2018, WA.2350/2018, WA.2394/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 03.07.2019, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::49:: ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF JULY 2019 / 12TH ASHADHA, 1941 WA.No.2399 of 2018** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 36112/2017 of HIGHCOURT** ## **APPELLANTS:** **1 REGIRAM S. AGED 48 YEARS S/O. P.K, SUKUMARAN, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR (HOSPITAL ADMINISTRATION) HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT - IN CHARGE, SCHOOL OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSINI HILLS, ATHIRAMPUZHA , KOTTAYAM -686560. 2 NANDAKUMAR P.S, S/O. P.A.SREEDHARAN PILLAI, LECTURER IN COMPUTER ENGINEERING , SCHOOL OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSINI HILLS, ATHIRAMPUZHA , KOTTAYAM -686560.** **3 SHINY MANUAL, AGED 44 YEARS W/O. JOHNSON C.JOHN, LECTURER, MEDICAL BIO CHEMISTRY, SCHOOL OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSINI HILLS, ATHIRAMPUZHA , KOTTAYAM -686560.** **BY ADV. SRI.N.N. SUGUNAPALAN (SR) SRI.S.SUJIN** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::50:: ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE REGISTRAR, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY PRIYADARSHINI HILLS,ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM-686560.** - **2 MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR-686560.** - **3 THE DIRECTOR, CENTRE FOR PROFESSIONAL AND ADVANCED STUDIES , SCHOOL OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, GANDHI NAGAR, KOTTAYAM-686008.** - **4 SYNDICATE, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, KOTTAYAM-686560** - **5 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.** - **6 NARAYANAN N, AGED 56 YEARS S/O. C.NARAYANAN BHATTATHIRI, LECTURER IN MATHEMATICS, SCHOOL OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSINI HILLS, ATHIRAMPUZHA , KOTTAYAM -686560.** - **7 DR.ASHA PETER, LECTURER IN MICRO BIOLOGY, SCHOOL OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSINI HILLS, ATHIRAMPUZHA , KOTTAYAM -686560.** - **8 DR. SHINI ZACHARIA, AGED 53 YEARS W/O. DR. XAVIER GEORGE, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR (MICRO BIOLOGY), SCHOOL OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSINI HILLS, ATHIRAMPUZHA , KOTTAYAM -686560.** - **9 ANNAMMA CHERIAN, AGED 50 YEARS W/O. ROY M.C, ASSISTANT PROFESSED(MICRO BIOLOGY), SCHOOL OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSINI HILLS, ATHIRAMPUZHA , KOTTAYAM -686560.** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::51:: **10 SHARLET GEORGE, AGED 46 YEARS D/O. P.M. VARKEY, LECTURER, MEDICAL BIO CHEMISTRY, SCHOOL OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSINI HILLS, ATHIRAMPUZHA , KOTTAYAM -686560.** **BY ADVS. SRI.N.BHARAT SRI. T.A SHAJI (SR) SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY SRI P.C. SASIDHARAN, SC, CPAS SRI. M A ASIF, SPL.GP** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.06.2019, ALONG WITH WA.1156/2019, WA.1018/2019, WA.260/2019, WA.156/2019, WA.120/2019, WA.188/2019, WA.161/2019, WA.2402/2018, WA.14/2019, WA.2380/2018, WA.2410/2018, WA.10/2019, WA.9/2019, WA.5/2019, WA.4/2019, WA.2462/2018, WA.2415/2018, WA.2412/2018, WA.2413/2018, WA.2420/2018, WA.2514/2018, WA.2485/2018, WA.2484/2018, WA.2512/2018, WA.2480/2018, WA.2473/2018, WA.2353/2018, WA.2354/2018, WA.2351/2018, WA.2397/2018, WA.2350/2018, WA.2394/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 03.07.2019, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::52:: ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN WEDNESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF JULY 2019 / 12TH ASHADHA, 1941 WA.No.2402 of 2018** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 25940/2017 of HIGHCOURT** ## **APPELLANTS:** **1 RAJENDRAN.R AGED 58 YEARS S/O.LATE V.RAMACHANDRA KAMATH, READER IN COMPUTER APPLICATIONS,SCHOOL OF TECHNOLOGY APPLIED SCIENCES (STAS), REGIONAL CENTER, PULLARIKUNNU, MALLOOSSERY P.O, KOTTAYAM-686041.(RESIDING AT CHAITHANYA, KUMARANALLOOR P.O, KOTTAYAM-686016.)** **2 DR. BINDU, M.,S, AGED 54 YEARS W/O. AISOO THOMAS, READER IN COMPUTER APPLICATIONS, SCHOOL OF TECHNOLOGY APPLIED SCIENCES (STAS). REGIONAL CENTER, PULLARIKUNNU, MALLOOSSERY P.O, KOTTAYAM-686041(RESIDING AT VADAVARAYIL HOUSE, KOLLAD P.O, PIN-686004,KOTTAYAM).** **BY ADVS. SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW SMT.KARTHIKA MARIA SMT.VEENA RAVEENDRAN SRI.ANIL SEBASTIAN PULICKEL SRI.ARUN THOMAS SRI.JENNIS STEPHEN SRI.VIJAY V. PAUL** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::53:: ## **RESPONDENTS:** |**1**|**STATE OF KERALA**| |---|---| ||**REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,**| ||**DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT**| ||**SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.**| |**2**|**MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY,**| ||**PRIYADARSHINI HILLS P.O, KOTTAYAM-**| ||**686560,REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.**| |**3**|**THE REGISTRAR,**| ||**MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY,PRIYADARSHINI HILLS P.O,**| ||**KOTTAYAM-686560**| |**4**|**SCHOOL OF TECHNOLOGY**| ||**APPLIED SCIENCES, PULLARIKKUNNU, MALLOOSSERY P.O,**| ||**KOTTAYAM-686041, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.**| |**5**|**CENTRE FOR PROFESSIONAL AND**| ||**ADVANCED STUDIES, GANDHI NAGAR, KOTTAYAM-686008,**| ||**REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.**| ||**BY ADV.**<br>**SRI. T.A SHAJI (SR)**| ||**SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY**| ||**SRI P.C. SASIDHARAN, SC, CPAS**| ||**SRI. M A ASIF, SPL.GP**| **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.06.2019, ALONG WITH WA.1156/2019, WA.1018/2019, WA.260/2019, WA.156/2019, WA.120/2019, WA.188/2019, WA.161/2019, WA.14/2019, WA.2380/2018, WA.2410/2018, WA.10/2019, WA.9/2019, WA.5/2019, WA.4/2019, WA.2462/2018, WA.2415/2018, WA.2412/2018, WA.2413/2018, WA.2420/2018, WA.2514/2018, WA.2485/2018, WA.2484/2018, WA.2512/2018, WA.2480/2018, WA.2473/2018, WA.2353/2018, WA.2354/2018, WA.2399/2018, WA.2351/2018, WA.2397/2018, WA.2350/2018, WA.2394/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 03.07.2019, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::54:: ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN WEDNESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF JULY 2019 / 12TH ASHADHA, 1941 WA.No.2410 of 2018 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 28476/2017 of HIGHCOURT** ## **APPELLANT/S:** **1 A.J. CHACKO, AGED 58 YEARS ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES, SCHOOL OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, KOTTAYAM. 2 SRIGANESAN.P, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES, SCHOOL OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, KOTTAYAM. 3 SUDHIR.M.R., SENIOR LECTURER, DEPARTMENT OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES, SCHOOL OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, KOTTAYAM. BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.SURESH KUMAR (SR.) SMT.C.K.SHERIN SRI.K.P.SUDHEER** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 STATE OF KERALA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::55:: - **2 MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY PRIYADARSHINI HILLS .P.O., KOTTAYAM, PIN-686560, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR** **3 THE CENTRAL FOR PROFESSIONAL ADVANCED STUDIES SCHOOL OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, GANDHI NAGAR, KOTTAYAM-686008, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.** **BY ADV. SRI. T.A SHAJI (SR) SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY SRI P.C. SASIDHARAN, SC, CPAS SRI. M A ASIF, SPL.GP** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.06.2019, ALONG WITH WA.1156/2019, WA.1018/2019, WA.260/2019, WA.156/2019, WA.120/2019, WA.188/2019, WA.161/2019, WA.2402/2018, WA.14/2019, WA.2380/2018, WA.10/2019, WA.9/2019, WA.5/2019, WA.4/2019, WA.2462/2018, WA.2415/2018, WA.2412/2018, WA.2413/2018, WA.2420/2018, WA.2514/2018, WA.2485/2018, WA.2484/2018, WA.2512/2018, WA.2480/2018, WA.2473/2018, WA.2353/2018, WA.2354/2018, WA.2399/2018, WA.2351/2018, WA.2397/2018, WA.2350/2018, WA.2394/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 03.07.2019, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::56:: ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN WEDNESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF JULY 2019 / 12TH ASHADHA, 1941 WA.No.2412 of 2018 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 32363/2017 of HIGHCOURT** ## **APPELLANT/S:** |**1**|**DR.CINU THOMAS,**| |---|---| ||**AGED 42 YEARS**| ||**SENIOR LECTURER, DEPARTMENT OF PHARMACEUTICAL**| ||**SCIENCES, SCHOOL OF MEDICAL EDUCATION,**| ||**CHERUVANDOOR, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, KOTTAYAM.**| |**2**|**DR.BEENA THOMAS,**| ||**SENIOR LECTURER, DEPARTMENT OF PHARMACEUTICAL**| ||**SCIENCES, SCHOOL OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, PUTHUPALLY,**| ||**MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, KOTTAYAM.**| **BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.SURESH KUMAR (SR.) SMT.C.K.SHERIN SRI.K.P.SUDHEER** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** |**1**|**STATE OF KERALA,**| |---|---| ||**DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT**| ||**SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695001,**| ||**REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.**| |**2**|**MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY,**| ||**PRIYADARSHINI HILLS P.O., KOTTAYAM, PIN- 686560,**| ||**REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.**| W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::57:: **3 THE CENTRE FOR PROFESSIONAL AND ADVANCED STUDIES SCHOOL OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, GANDHI NAGAR, KOTTAYAM- 686008, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.** **BY ADV. SRI. T.A SHAJI (SR) SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY SRI P.C. SASIDHARAN, SC, CPAS SRI. M A ASIF, SPL.GP** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.06.2019, ALONG WITH WA.1156/2019, WA.1018/2019, WA.260/2019, WA.156/2019, WA.120/2019, WA.188/2019, WA.161/2019, WA.2402/2018, WA.14/2019, WA.2380/2018, WA.2410/2018, WA.10/2019, WA.9/2019, WA.5/2019, WA.4/2019, WA.2462/2018, WA.2415/2018, WA.2413/2018, WA.2420/2018, WA.2514/2018, WA.2485/2018, WA.2484/2018, WA.2512/2018, WA.2480/2018, WA.2473/2018, WA.2353/2018, WA.2354/2018, WA.2399/2018, WA.2351/2018, WA.2397/2018, WA.2350/2018, WA.2394/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 03.07.2019, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::58:: ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF JULY 2019 / 12TH ASHADHA, 1941** **WA.No.2413 of 2018** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 32341/2017 of HIGHCOURT** ## **APPELLANT:** **DR. SAJAN JOSE, AGED 43 YEARS S/O.M.A.JOSEPH, SENIOR LECTURER, DEPARTMENT OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES, SCHOOL OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, CHERUVANDOOR, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, KOTTAYAM.** **BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.SURESH KUMAR (SR.) SMT.C.K.SHERIN SRI.K.P.SUDHEER** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 STATE OF KERALA, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2 MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS P.O., KOTTAYAM, PIN- 686560, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. 3 THE CENTRE FOR PROFESSIONAL AND ADVANCED STUDIES** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::59:: **SCHOOL OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, GANDHI NAGAR, KOTTAYAM- 686008, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.** **BY ADV. SRI. T.A SHAJI (SR) SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY SRI P.C. SASIDHARAN, SC, CPAS SRI. M A ASIF, SPL.GP** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.06.2019, ALONG WITH WA.1156/2019, WA.1018/2019, WA.260/2019, WA.156/2019, WA.120/2019, WA.188/2019, WA.161/2019, WA.2402/2018, WA.14/2019, WA.2380/2018, WA.2410/2018, WA.10/2019, WA.9/2019, WA.5/2019, WA.4/2019, WA.2462/2018, WA.2415/2018, WA.2412/2018, WA.2420/2018, WA.2514/2018, WA.2485/2018, WA.2484/2018, WA.2512/2018, WA.2480/2018, WA.2473/2018, WA.2353/2018, WA.2354/2018, WA.2399/2018, WA.2351/2018, WA.2397/2018, WA.2350/2018, WA.2394/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 03.07.2019, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::60:: ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF JULY 2019 / 12TH ASHADHA, 1941 WA.No.2415 of 2018** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 36908/2017 of HIGHCOURT** ## **APPELLANT:** **RESNA S., AGED 42 YEARS W/O GIRI RAJ, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF PHYSIOTHERAPY, SCHOOL OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, GANDHI NAGAR, KOTTAYAM.** **BY ADVS. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN (SR.) SRI.K.SUDHINKUMAR SRI.MUHAMMED IBRAHIM ABDUL SAMAD SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) SRI.SABU PULLAN SRI.S.K.ADHITHYAN SRI.S.VIBHEESHANAN** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **1 THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, ATHIRAMPUZHA P.O., KOTTAYAM-686560. 2 THE REGISTRAR, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, ATHIRAMPUZHA P.O., KOTTAYAM-686560.** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::61:: **3 THE DIRECTOR, CENTRE FOR PROFESSIONAL AND ADVANCED STUDIES, SCHOOL OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, GANDHI NAGAR KOTTAYAM686008.** - **4 THE SYNDICATE, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, , KOTTAYAM-686560.** - **5 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695001.** **BY ADV. SRI. T.A SHAJI (SR) SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY SRI P.C. SASIDHARAN, SC, CPAS SRI. M A ASIF, SPL.GP** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.06.2019, ALONG WITH WA.1156/2019, WA.1018/2019, WA.260/2019, WA.156/2019, WA.120/2019, WA.188/2019, WA.161/2019, WA.2402/2018, WA.14/2019, WA.2380/2018, WA.2410/2018, WA.10/2019, WA.9/2019, WA.5/2019, WA.4/2019, WA.2462/2018, WA.2412/2018, WA.2413/2018,** **WA.2420/2018, WA.2514/2018, WA.2485/2018, WA.2484/2018, WA.2512/2018, WA.2480/2018, WA.2473/2018, WA.2353/2018, WA.2354/2018, WA.2399/2018, WA.2351/2018, WA.2397/2018, WA.2350/2018, WA.2394/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 03.07.2019, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::62:: ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN WEDNESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF JULY 2019 / 12TH ASHADHA, 1941** **WA.No.2420 of 2018** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 36959/2017 of HIGHCOURT** ## **APPELLANS:** |**1**|**RANI SREEDARAN, AGED 51 YEARS**| |---|---| ||**W/O.DR.RADHA RAMANAN,ASSISTANT PROFESSOR AND HEAD**| ||**OF THE DEPARTMENT,DEPARTMENT OF MEDICAL LABORATORY**| ||**TECHNOLOGY,SCHOOL OF MEDICAL EDUCATION REGIONAL**| ||**CENTRE,**| ||**ANGAMALY,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.**| |**2**|**SANIL RAJ AGED 46 YEARS**| ||**S/O.LATE P.S. RAMAKRISHNAN, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR AND**| ||**HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT,**| ||**DEPARTMENT OF PHYSIOTHERAPY, SCHOOL OF MEDICAL**| ||**EDUCATION REGIONAL CENTRE,**| ||**ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.**| |**3**|**ANCY PAUL, AGED 41 YEARS**| ||**W/O.GEORGE P.CHERIAN,ASSISTANT PROFESSOR,**| ||**DEPARTMENT OF PHYSIOTHERAPY,SCHOOL OF MEDICAL**| ||**EDUCATION REGIONAL CENTRE,**| ||**ANGAMALY,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.**| |**4**|**KOCHURANI JACOB AGED 48 YEARS**| ||**W/.O.K.V.JAMES,ASSISTANT PROFESSOR,**| ||**DEPARTMENT OF PHYSIOTHERAPY,SCHOOL OF MEDICAL**| ||**EDUCATION REGIONAL CENTRE,**| ||**ANGAMALY,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.**| W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::63:: **BY ADVS. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN (SR.) SRI.K.SUDHINKUMAR SRI.MUHAMMED IBRAHIM ABDUL SAMAD SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) SRI.SABU PULLAN SRI.S.K.ADHITHYAN SRI.S.VIBHEESHANAN** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR,PRIAYADARSHINI HILLS,ATHIRAMPUZHA.P.O,KOTTAYAM-686560.** - **2 THE REGISTRAR MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVESITY,PRIYADARSHINI HILLS,ATHIRAMPUZHA.P.O,KOTTAYAM-686560.** - **3 THE DIRECTOR ,CENTRE FOR PROFESSIONAL AND ADVANCED STUDIES, SCHOOL OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, GANDHI NAGAR, KOTTAYAM-686008.** - **4 SYNDICATE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY,PRIAYADARSINI HILLS,ATHIRAMPUZHA.P.O,KOTTAYAM-686560.** - **5 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.** **BY ADV. SRI. T.A SHAJI (SR) SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY SRI P.C. SASIDHARAN, SC, CPAS SRI. M A ASIF, SPL.GP** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.06.2019, ALONG WITH WA.1156/2019, WA.1018/2019, WA.260/2019, WA.156/2019, WA.120/2019, WA.188/2019, WA.161/2019, WA.2402/2018, WA.14/2019, WA.2380/2018, WA.2410/2018, WA.10/2019, WA.9/2019, WA.5/2019, WA.4/2019, WA.2462/2018, WA.2415/2018, WA.2412/2018, WA.2413/2018, WA.2514/2018, WA.2485/2018, WA.2484/2018, WA.2512/2018, WA.2480/2018, WA.2473/2018, WA.2353/2018, WA.2354/2018, WA.2399/2018, WA.2351/2018, WA.2397/2018, WA.2350/2018, WA.2394/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 03.07.2019, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::64:: ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF JULY 2019 / 12TH ASHADHA, 1941 WA.No.2460 of 2018** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 41873/2017 of HIGHCOURT** ## **APPELLANT:** **ANUJA K. AGED 44 YEARS LECTURER IN COMPUTER SCIENCE, SCHOOL OF TECHNOLOGY AND APPLIED SCIENCES(STAS), MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 645.** **BY ADVS. SRI.BABU VARGHESE (SR.) SRI.C.V.ALEXANDER** ## **RESPONDENTS:** |**1**|**THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY**| |---|---| ||**REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS**| ||**P.O., KOTTAYAM - 686 560.**| |**2**|**THE SYNDICATE OF THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY**| ||**REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN-VICE-CHANCELLOR,**| ||**MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS**| ||**P.O., KOTTAYAM - 686 560.**| |**3**|**CENTRE FOR PROFESSIONAL AND ADVANCED STUDIES**| ||**REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, SCHOOL OF TECHNOLOGY**| ||**AND APPLIED SCIENCES(STAS), GANDHI NAGAR, KOTTAYAM**| ||**- 686 008.**| W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::65:: **4 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.** **BY ADV. SRI. T.A SHAJI (SR) SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY SRI P.C. SASIDHARAN, SC, CPAS SRI. M A ASIF, SPL.GP** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.06.2019, ALONG WITH WA.663/2019, WA.160/2019, WA.364/2019, WA.423/2019, WA.2502/2018 W.A.2394/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 03.07.2019, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::66:: ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN WEDNESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF JULY 2019 / 12TH ASHADHA, 1941** **WA.No.2462 of 2018** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 41029/2017 of HIGHCOURT** ## **APPELLANTS:** **NIRMALA V. AGED 57 YEARS ARUKKUZHI HOUSE, PAZHAYANADU, KIZHAKKAMBALAM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 683 562** **BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.) SMT. NISHA GEORGE** ## **RESPONDENTS:** |**1**|**STATE OF KERALA**| |---|---| ||**DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION,**| ||**GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001,**| ||**REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY**| |**2**|**MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY**| ||**PRIYADARSHINI HILLS P.O.,**| ||**KOTTAYAM 686 560,**| ||**REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR**| |**3**|**CENTRE FOR PROFESSIONAL AND**| ||**ADVANCED STUDIES,**| W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::67:: ## **SCHOOL OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, GANDHI NAGAR, KOTTAYM 686 008, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR** **BY ADV. SRI. T.A SHAJI (SR) SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY SRI P.C. SASIDHARAN, SC, CPAS SRI. M A ASIF, SPL.GP** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.06.2019, ALONG WITH WA.1156/2019, WA.1018/2019, WA.260/2019, WA.156/2019, WA.120/2019, WA.188/2019, WA.161/2019, WA.2402/2018, WA.14/2019, WA.2380/2018, WA.2410/2018, WA.10/2019, WA.9/2019, WA.5/2019, WA.4/2019, WA.2415/2018, WA.2412/2018, WA.2413/2018, WA.2420/2018, WA.2514/2018, WA.2485/2018, WA.2484/2018, WA.2512/2018, WA.2480/2018, WA.2473/2018, WA.2353/2018, WA.2354/2018, WA.2399/2018, WA.2351/2018, WA.2397/2018, WA.2350/2018, WA.2394/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 03.07.2019, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::68:: ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF JULY 2019 / 12TH ASHADHA, 1941** **WA.No.2473 of 2018** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 41453/2017 of HIGHCOURT** ## **APPELLANT/S:** **DR. BENAZIR K.K., AGED 45 YEARS LECTURER IN COMPUTER SCIENCE, SCHOOL OF TECHNOLOGY AND APPLIED SCIENCES (STAS), MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PULLARIKUNNU CAMPUS, KOTTAYAM-686560.** **BY ADV. SRI.BABU VARGHESE (SR.) SRI C.V. ALEXANDER** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** |**1**|**THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY,**| |---|---| ||**REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR,**| ||**PRIYADARSHINI HILLS P.O.,**| ||**KOTTAYAM-686 560.**| |**2**|**THE VICE CHANCELLOR,**| ||**CHAIRMAN OF THE SYNDICATE MAHATMA GANDHI**| ||**UNIVERSITY,**| ||**PRIYADARSHINI HILLS P.O., KOTTAYAM-686560.**| W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::69:: **3 CENTRE FOR PROFESSIONAL AND ADVANCED STUDIES, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, SCHOOL OF MEDICAL EDUCATION (ANNEX), ARPOOKARA, GANDHI NAGAR, KOTTAYAM-686008.** **4 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** **BY ADV. SRI. T.A SHAJI (SR) SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY SRI P.C. SASIDHARAN, SC, CPAS SRI. M A ASIF, SPL.GP** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.06.2019, ALONG WITH WA.1156/2019, WA.1018/2019, WA.260/2019, WA.156/2019, WA.120/2019, WA.188/2019, WA.161/2019, WA.2402/2018, WA.14/2019, WA.2380/2018, WA.2410/2018, WA.10/2019, WA.9/2019, WA.5/2019, WA.4/2019, WA.2462/2018, WA.2415/2018, WA.2412/2018, WA.2413/2018, WA.2420/2018, WA.2514/2018, WA.2485/2018, WA.2484/2018, WA.2512/2018, WA.2480/2018, WA.2353/2018, WA.2354/2018, WA.2399/2018, WA.2351/2018, WA.2397/2018, WA.2350/2018, WA.2394/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 03.07.2019, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::70:: ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF JULY 2019 / 12TH ASHADHA, 1941 WA.No.2480 of 2018** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 36112/2017 of HIGHCOURT** ## **APPELLANTS:** **1 DR.ASHA PETER AGED 49 YEARS LECTURER IN MICRO BIOLOGY, SCHOOL OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSINI HILLS, ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686560. 2 DR.SHINI ZACHARIA, AGED 53 YEARS W/O.DR.XAVIER GEORGE, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR (MICRO BIOLOGY), SCHOOL OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSINI HILLS, ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686560. 3 ANNAMMA CHERIAN, AGED 50 YEARS W/I.ROY M.C., ASSISTANT PROFESSOR (MICRO BIOLOGY), SCHOOL OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSINI HILLS, ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686560. 4 SHARIET GEORGE, AGED 46 YEARS D/O.P.M.VARKEY, LECTURER MEDICAL BIO CHEMISTRY, SCHOOL OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSINI HILLS, ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686560. BY ADV. SRI.N.N. SUGUNAPALAN(SR) SRI.S.SUJIN** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::71:: ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE REGISTRAR, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTYAAM-686560.** - **2 MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM-686560. REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.** - **3 THE DIRECTOR, CENTRE FOR PROFESSIONAL AND ADVANCED STUDIES, SCHOOL OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, GANDHI NAGAR, KOTTAYAM-686008.** - **4 SYNDICATE, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686560.** - **5 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001.** - **6 NARAYANAN N., AGED 56 YEARS** - **S/O.C.NARAYANAN BHATTATHIRI, LECTURER IN MATHEMATICS, SCHOOL OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686560.** - **7 REGIRAM S., AGED 48 YEARS** - **S/O.P.K.SUKUMARAN, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR (HOSPITAL ADMINISTRATION) HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT-IN-CHARGE, SCHOOL OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY PRIYADARSINI HILLS, ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686560.** ## **8 NANDAKUMAR P.S.,** **S/O.P.A.SREEDHARAN PILLAI, LECTURER IN COMPUTER ENGINEERING, SCHOOL OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY PRIYADARSINI HILLS, ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686560.** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::72:: **9 SHINY MANUAL, AGED 44 YEARS W/O.JOHNSON C.JON, LECTURER, MEDICAL BIO CHEMISTRY, SCHOOL OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY PRIYADARSINI HILLS, ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686560.** **BY ADVS. SRI.N.BHARAT SRI. T.A SHAJI (SR) SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY SRI P.C. SASIDHARAN, SC, CPAS SRI. M A ASIF, SPL.GP** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.06.2019, ALONG WITH WA.1156/2019, WA.1018/2019, WA.260/2019, WA.156/2019, WA.120/2019, WA.188/2019, WA.161/2019, WA.2402/2018, WA.14/2019, WA.2380/2018, WA.2410/2018, WA.10/2019, WA.9/2019, WA.5/2019, WA.4/2019, WA.2462/2018, WA.2415/2018, WA.2412/2018, WA.2413/2018, WA.2420/2018, WA.2514/2018, WA.2485/2018, WA.2484/2018, WA.2512/2018, WA.2473/2018, WA.2353/2018, WA.2354/2018, WA.2399/2018, WA.2351/2018, WA.2397/2018, WA.2350/2018, WA.2394/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 03.07.2019, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::73:: ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF JULY 2019 / 12TH ASHADHA, 1941 WA.No.2484 of 2018** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 33096/2017 of HIGHCOURT** ## **APPELLANT/S:** - **1 DR.ANIL KUMAR N. AGED 48 YEARS** **ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCE, SCHOOL OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, CHERUVANDOOR CAMPUS, ETTUMANOOR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.** - **2 DR.SIBI.P.I.** **ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCE, SCHOOL OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, RIMSR RUBBER BOARD P.O., THALAPADY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.** - **3 DR.BOBBY.S.PRASAD** **SENIOR LECTURER, DEPARTMENT OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCE, SCHOOL OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, CHERUVANDOOR CAMPUS, ETTUMANOOR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.** - **4 DR.VEENA.R.,** **SENIOR LECTURER, DEPARTMENT OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCE, SCHOOL OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, CHERUVANDOOR CAMPUS, ETTUMANOOR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.** **5 DR.LITTY JOSEPH SENIOR LECTURER, DEPARTMENT OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCE, SCHOOL OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, CHERUVANDOOR CAMPUS, ETTUMANOOR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::74:: - **6 DR.BINDU.A.R. SENIOR LECTURER, DEPARTMENT OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCE, SCHOOL OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, CHERUVANDOOR CAMPUS, ETTUMANOOR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.** - **7 C.PRAMOD SENIOR LECTURER, DEPARTMENT OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCE, SCHOOL OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, RIMSR RUBBER BOARD PO., THALAPADY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.** - **8 DR.JAYAPRAKASH.A.P. SENIOR LECTURER, DEPARTMENT OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCE, SCHOOL OF MEDICAL EDUCATION,RIMSR RUBBER BOARD PO, THALAPADY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS. SRI. JAJU BABU (SR) SRI.K.SHAJ SRI.RENJIT GEORGE** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.** - **2 MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS P.O., KOTTAYAM - 686 560.** - **3 THE DIRECTOR SCHOOL OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, KOTTAYAM - 686 560.** - **4 THE CENTRE FOR PROFESSIONAL AND ADVANCED STUDIES REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, SCHOOL OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, GANDHI NAGAR, KOTTAYAM - 686008.** - **5 DR.SHAKKEELA YUSUF SENIOR LECTURER, DEPARTMENT OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCE, SCHOOL OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, CHERUVANDOOR CAMPUS, ETTUMANOOR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases **==> picture [31 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** **BY ADVS. SRI.N.A.RETHEESH BY ADV. SRI. T.A SHAJI (SR) SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY SRI P.C. SASIDHARAN, SC, CPAS SRI. M A ASIF, SPL.GP** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.06.2019, ALONG WITH WA.1156/2019, WA.1018/2019, WA.260/2019, WA.156/2019, WA.120/2019, WA.188/2019, WA.161/2019, WA.2402/2018, WA.14/2019, WA.2380/2018, WA.2410/2018, WA.10/2019, WA.9/2019, WA.5/2019, WA.4/2019, WA.2462/2018, WA.2415/2018, WA.2412/2018, WA.2413/2018, WA.2420/2018, WA.2514/2018, WA.2485/2018, WA.2512/2018, WA.2480/2018, WA.2473/2018, WA.2353/2018, WA.2354/2018, WA.2399/2018, WA.2351/2018, WA.2397/2018, WA.2350/2018, WA.2394/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 03.07.2019, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::76:: ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF JULY 2019 / 12TH ASHADHA, 1941 WA.No.2485 of 2018** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 25812/2017 of HIGHCOURT** ## **APPELLANTS:** - **1 DR.MEERA RAJ S. AGED 49 YEARS PRINCIPAL, UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION OF MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, ELANTHUR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.** - **2 DR.T.P.OMANA PRINCIPAL, UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION OF MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT.** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 MAHATAMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY (M.G.UNIVERSITY), PRIYADARSHINI HILLS P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 560 REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.** - **2 THE CO-ORDINATOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION, MAIN CENTRE, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 560.** - **3 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::77:: # **EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** **4 CENTRE FOR PROFESSIONAL AND ADVANCE LEGAL STUDIES REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, AARPUKKARA, KOTTAYAM686 521.** **BY ADV. SRI. T.A SHAJI (SR) SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY SRI P.C. SASIDHARAN, SC, CPAS SRI. M A ASIF, SPL.GP** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.06.2019, ALONG WITH WA.1156/2019, WA.1018/2019, WA.260/2019, WA.156/2019, WA.120/2019, WA.188/2019, WA.161/2019, WA.2402/2018, WA.14/2019, WA.2380/2018, WA.2410/2018, WA.10/2019, WA.9/2019, WA.5/2019, WA.4/2019, WA.2462/2018, WA.2415/2018, WA.2412/2018, WA.2413/2018, WA.2420/2018, WA.2514/2018, WA.2484/2018, WA.2512/2018, WA.2480/2018, WA.2473/2018, WA.2353/2018, WA.2354/2018, WA.2399/2018, WA.2351/2018, WA.2397/2018, WA.2350/2018, WA.2394/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 03.07.2019, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::78:: ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF JULY 2019 / 12TH ASHADHA, 1941 WA.No.2502 of 2018** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 26041/2017 of HIGHCOURT** ## **APPELLANTS:** **1 CELINE THOMAS, AGED 48 YEARS PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF NURSING, SCHOOL OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, KOTTAYAM.** **2 RENY THOMAS, PROFESSOR OF NURSING, UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF NURSING, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, KOTTAYAM. 3 REGI THOMAS, PROFESSOR OF NURSING, UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF NURSING, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, KOTTAYAM. BY ADVS. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.) SRI.S.SUJIN** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM- 686560, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.** - **2 REGISTRAR, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS,** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::79:: ## **KOTTAYAM- 686560.** **3 DIRECTOR, SCHOOL OF MEDICAL INSTITUTION, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM- 686560.** **BY ADV. SRI. T.A SHAJI (SR) SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY SRI P.C. SASIDHARAN, SC, CPAS SRI. M A ASIF, SPL.GP** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.06.2019, ALONG WITH WA.663/2019, WA.160/2019, WA.364/2019, WA.423/2019, WA.2460/2018 WA 2394/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 03.07.2019, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::80:: **PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF JULY 2019 / 12TH ASHADHA, 1941** **WA.No.2512 of 2018** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 12326/2018 of HIGHCOURT** ## **APPELLANT/S:** **DR. ANVAR K. AGED 44 YEARS PRINCIPAL,UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION(UCTE),MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, NEDUMKANDAM,IDUKKI-686008.** **BY ADV.SRI BABU VARGHESE (SR) SRI C.V. ALEXANDER** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** |**1**|**MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY**| |---|---| ||**REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR,P.RIYADARSHINI**| ||**HILLS.P.O,**| ||**KOTTAYAM-686008.**| |**2**|**THE VICE CHANCELLOR**| ||**CHAIRMAN OF THE SYNDICATE, MAHATMA GANDHI**| ||**UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS.P.O, KOTTAYAM-**| ||**686008.**| |**3**|**THE CENTRE FOR PROFESSIONAL AND ADVANCE STUDIES,**| ||**REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR,SCHOOL OF MEDICAL**| ||**EDUCATION(ANNEX),ARPOOKARA,GANDHI NAGAR,**| ||**KOTTAYAM-686008.**| |**4**|**THE STATE OF KERALA**| W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::81:: ## **REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.** **BY ADV. SRI. T.A SHAJI (SR) SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY SRI P.C. SASIDHARAN, SC, CPAS SRI. M A ASIF, SPL.GP** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.06.2019, ALONG WITH WA.1156/2019, WA.1018/2019, WA.260/2019, WA.156/2019, WA.120/2019, WA.188/2019, WA.161/2019, WA.2402/2018, WA.14/2019, WA.2380/2018, WA.2410/2018, WA.10/2019, WA.9/2019, WA.5/2019, WA.4/2019, WA.2462/2018, WA.2415/2018, WA.2412/2018, WA.2413/2018, WA.2420/2018, WA.2514/2018, WA.2485/2018, WA.2484/2018, WA.2480/2018, WA.2473/2018, WA.2353/2018, WA.2354/2018, WA.2399/2018, WA.2351/2018, WA.2397/2018, WA.2350/2018, WA.2394/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 03.07.2019, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::82:: ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF JULY 2019 / 12TH ASHADHA, 1941 WA.No.2514 of 2018** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 28808/2018 of HIGHCOURT** ## **APPELLANTS:** **1 CELINE THOMAS AGED 51 YEARS PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF NURSING, SCHOOL OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, KOTTAYAM. 2 RENY THOMAS PROFESSOR OF NURSING, UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF NURSING, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, KOTTAYAM. 3 REGI THOMAS PROFESSOR OF NURSING, UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF NURSING, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, KOTTAYAM.** ## **RESPONDENTS:** |**1**|**MAHATHMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY**| |---|---| ||**PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM - 686 560,**| ||**REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.**| |**2**|**REGISTRAR, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY**| ||**PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM - 686 560.**| |**3**|**DIRECTOR, SCHOOL OF MEDICAL INSTITUTION,**| ||**MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS,**| ||**KOTTAYAM - 686560.**| |**4**|**CENTRE FOR PROFESSIONAL AND ADVANCED STUDIES,**| W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::83:: **SCHOOL OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, GANDHI NAGAR, KOTTAYAM - 686 008, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.** **BY ADV. SRI. T.A SHAJI (SR) SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY SRI P.C. SASIDHARAN, SC, CPAS SRI. M A ASIF, SPL.GP** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.06.2019, ALONG WITH WA.1156/2019, WA.1018/2019, WA.260/2019, WA.156/2019, WA.120/2019, WA.188/2019, WA.161/2019, WA.2402/2018, WA.14/2019, WA.2380/2018, WA.2410/2018, WA.10/2019, WA.9/2019, WA.5/2019, WA.4/2019, WA.2462/2018, WA.2415/2018, WA.2412/2018, WA.2413/2018, WA.2420/2018, WA.2485/2018, WA.2484/2018, WA.2512/2018, WA.2480/2018, WA.2473/2018, WA.2353/2018, WA.2354/2018, WA.2399/2018, WA.2351/2018, WA.2397/2018, WA.2350/2018, WA.2394/2018, THE COURT ON 03.07.2019, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **JUDGMENT** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::84:: **[ WA 2394/2018 ,WA.4/2019 ,WA.5/2019 ,WA.9/2019 ,WA.10/2019 ,WA.14/2019 ,WA.120/2019 ,WA.156/2019 ,WA.160/2019 ,WA.161/2019 ,WA.188/2019 ,WA.260/2019 ,WA.364/2019 ,WA.423/2019 ,WA.663/2019 ,WA.1018/2019 ,WA.1156/2019 ,WA.2350/2018 ,WA.2351/2018 ,WA.2353/2018 ,WA.2354/2018 ,WA.2380/2018 ,WA.2397/2018 ,WA.2399/2018 ,WA.2402/2018 ,WA.2410/2018 ,WA.2412/2018 ,WA.2413/2018 ,WA.2415/2018 ,WA.2420/2018 ,WA.2460/2018 ,WA.2462/2018 ,WA.2473/2018 ,WA.2480/2018 ,WA.2484/2018 ,WA.2485/2018 ,WA.2502/2018 ,WA.2512/2018 ,WA.2514/2018 ]** ## **K. Vinod Chandran, J** ## **I. THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT:** **I(i). These appeals are against the judgment of the learned Single Judge which found the writ petitioners to have no status of statutory employment and negatived their claim for regularisation as University teachers. The appointment of the appellants were found to be contractual and their service being in Self Financing Institutions( hereinafter SFI's), it was held, they cannot claim University Grants Commission (for short “UGC”) scales of pay especially on the ground of the institution being not a recipient of any funds from the UGC. It was found that the Centre for Professional and Advanced Studies ('CPAS' for brevity;** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::85:: **alternatively referred to as the 'Society'), which had taken over the SFI's; earlier functioning under the University had called for options from the appellants to be continued on contract basis on such terms including pay and allowances as decided by the said Society constituted under the Travancore-Cochin Literary Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955. Those who had not expressed their willingness; were directed to do so, if desirous, within one month and otherwise those persons were directed to be granted one month's salary in-lieu of notice and applicable gratuity on termination.** **I(ii). The writ petitions were disposed of with the above directions mainly relying on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.442/2014 dated 20.11.2015 wherein the identical appellants in W.A No.156/2019 were parties which is also produced as Ext.P18 in the said appeal. The decision dated 20.11.2015 in W.A No.442/2014 held that there is** _**“no rationale in directing the University to grant the writ petitioners all the benefits treating them as permanent**_ W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases **==> picture [31 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** _**on par with University teachers”**_ **(sic-para 14). It was also held in paragraph 15 that the** _**Single Judge was not correct in directing the University to treat the the petitioners as permanent teachers entitled to all benefits and setting aside of the impugned resolutions of the University.(sic)**_ **This decision was successfully challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and stands reversed, by Annexure A1 judgment, produced along with an additional affidavit.** ## **II. THE APPELLANTS:** **II(i). According to the learned Senior Counsel Sri.S. Gopakumaran Nair, who led the arguments, the issue with respect to the status of the appellants stand concluded by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. There could be no doubt raised on their appointments and continuance as teachers in the University, with regular scales of pay and they have the status of University teachers and were entitled all benefits that are granted to similarly placed teachers in the University. The other appellants too rely on the Supreme Court decision and assert that their** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::87:: **appointments and continuance, in posts created by the University, wherein they were continued uninterruptedly for long years with declaration of probation, revisions of scales of pay and promotions, also are governed by the same para meters as laid down by the Supreme Court. The appellants challenge the creation of the Society as a measure to defeat the decision of this Court in W.A. No.794 of 2013 and connected cases dated 07.12.2016, which granted the appellants therein, identically situated, regular scales of pay. A conscious attempt is made to deny that and thus violate even the undertaking made before this Court in W.A. No.442 of 2014. By a devious measure employed of creation of a Society and transfer of the SFI's to that Society, the attempt is only to terminate the appellants and facilitate re-employment only on consolidated pay packets, far lesser than that they were getting under regular scales of pay; which benefit they had obtained after protracted litigation. W.A. No.442/2014 to the extent it denied permanent status to the appellants has been reversed by the Supreme Court.** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::88:: **II(ii). The University and the State in cohorts, has employed this device to scavenge upon the helpless employees, rendered supine by their abrupt termination. The appellants who are the teaching faculty of the University, having spent a major portion of their adult life in the University, are now wellpast their prime and incapable of securing any fresh employment. Many had succumbed to the machinations of the University, carried out with the active support of the State and expressed willingness to serve under the Society, on the different terms stipulated by the Society. This was only due to sheer helplessness; to keep away the ominous wolf baying at their doorsteps. Some had obtained interim orders before expressing their willingness, which makes it subject to their protest; the challenge made to their termination and reduction of benefits. But even in the case of the others, the circumstances cannot be such as to find their willingness to be on consent or an expression of free will. The appellants seek continuance on the terms of service they earlier enjoyed, which they obtained by** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::89:: **virtue of the orders of this Court and now affirmed by the Supreme Court; either under the University or the newly formed Society, that too on terms akin to that of the Teachers of the University Departments; which status the SFI's have. Certain of the appellants also challenge the de-linking of the SFI's and the formation of the Society on various grounds.** ## **III. THE UNIVERSITY:** **III(i). Sri.T.A Shaji, learned Senior Counsel instructed by learned Standing Counsel for the University, Sri. Surin George Ipe, would at the outset submit there is an essential difference between the facts in W.A No.156/2019; identical to which are the facts in W.A. Nos.2394 & 2402 of 2018 and 120 of 2019, and the other writ appeals. It is also contended that unlike in the case of those appellants, in all other cases the appellants were appointed on contract basis, specifically indicating the temporary nature of their appointment, in the respective notifications and appointment orders, by virtue of which they joined the SFI's. These appointments, were pursuant to** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::90:: **notifications inviting applications for appointment on contract, for specific periods and can only be treated as temporary. The grant of scales of pay cannot be the sole reason to confer the engagement of the appellants, a permanent status.** **III(ii).It is argued that even in W.A.No.156 of 2019, there is a different approach possible as to the status of the appellants, while admitting their entitlements as found by the Supreme Court. The directions in the judgment of the learned Single Judge, in the writ petitions, which ultimately reached the Apex Court, at Ext.P17 was restored. Ext.P17 does not confer any regular status to the appellants nor can they be treated as identical to teachers employed in the various departments of the University. Even conceding to the binding declaration of the Supreme Court that the SFI's are a part of the University, the status of the employees in the SFI's stand distinct and different from the teaching faculty of the University in the various Departments of the University. We pause here to immediately observe that from a reading of the** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::91:: **judgment of the learned Single Judge which has now been affirmed by the Supreme Court, it is otherwise and there is a clear declaration of permanent employment.** **III(iii). The distinction from the teachers employed in the faculties, is attempted to be drawn since the faculty appointed to the Departments of the University retire at 60 while the teachers in the affiliated and aided colleges retire at the age of 56. The learned Senior Counsel for the University points out the provisions under the Act and the Statutes to contend that the appellants, definitely are not University teachers; nor can they be deemed to be faculty of the Department of the University. Section 2(8) of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act, 1985 [for brevity "MGU Act"] is pointed out to argue that the 'department' is one designated as such by the Ordinances or Regulations with reference to a subject or group of subjects. The departments as available in the University are designated by the statutes; specifically Statute 2 of Chapter 42. A SFI is not a department as seen from the aforesaid Statute.** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases **==> picture [31 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** **Sub-sections (29) and (30) of the definition clauses under Section 2 of the MGU Act are also referred, to distinguish a "Teacher" from a "Teacher of the University". A 'Teacher' is one imparting instruction or supervising research in any of the colleges or recognized institutions and whose appointment has been approved by the University, while a 'Teacher of the University' is a person employed as teacher in any institution maintained by the University. Sub-section (33) of Section 2 is also referred, to indicate what a 'University Fund' is. From the above provisions, what the learned Counsel seeks to put forward is that if the appellants are found to be regular employees of the University, they can only be the employees of the SFI's and not a Teacher of the University. Their position is akin to a Teacher in an un-aided College, the management of which is with the University. It is argued that there cannot be any relevance placed on the reference to the 'permanent faculty' in the communications to the apex bodies, AICTE and UGC; since they are permanent only as long as the SFI's exist. The** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases **==> picture [31 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** **University had taken a policy decision to stop the SFI's, for reason of it being financially not viable and only in such circumstance the Government stepped in to form a Society to run such institutions.** **III(iv). It is also pointed out that Section 23 of the MGU Act delineates the power of the Syndicate. Clause (vii) is the power to establish, maintain and manage colleges and institutes of research and other institutions of higher learning as it may from time to time deem necessary; which is the power used to establish the SFI's. Section 23 confers power on the Syndicate to appoint teachers and other employees of the University and prescribe their duties. Sub-clauses (ix) and (xxvi) are also specifically referred with emphasis on the provisos. Chapter 3 of the Statutes dealing with 'Teachers of the University' is referred to, in which the 'institution of posts' by the Syndicate as per Statute-1 has the same proviso. The creation of posts, both administrative and academic, as provided in the aforesaid clauses, can only be with the previous approval of the Government, if it involves** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases **==> picture [31 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** **expenditure in excess of the budgetary provision. We have to immediately notice that none of the appointments created were with any expenditure from the budgetary provisions of the State, since it was managed with the funds generated from the fees collected from the students. It is also pertinent that no sanction was obtained from the Government for creating such posts and making such appointments.** **III(v). Statute-2 of Chapter 3, deals with abolition or suspension of posts. The Syndicate could, at any time, abolish the post by giving six months notice if there is a permanent incumbent in the vacancy. It is submitted that, on the Academic Council deciding to stop a SFI, since it became financially non viable, the institution itself ceases to exist and as a consequence the posts created in the institution are abolished. The appellants can have no claim to continue, for reason of the post having been abolished. It is argued that the Society was formed at the aegis of the Government to take over the SFI's, so that the courses can be continued and the students would not be prejudiced. It is also argued that there can be no reliance placed on the various documents** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases **==> picture [31 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** **relied on by the appellants which were documents originated in the SFI's itself so originated by persons who were similar to the appellants and holding temporary posts. The attempt to style their continuance in a regular post, cannot be countenanced. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court above cited is also read over to point out that the Court had only found that the SFI's are part of the University and had not specifically spoken of whether the appellants can be deemed to be similar to University teachers appointed to the various departments of the University.** **III(vi). Further it is contended that there has been considerable change in the manner of affiliations to professional courses for reason of two Universities having been created by Statute for the purpose of carrying on the respective professional courses in Engineering and Medicine as also allied subjects. As far as the Engineering courses are concerned they are now affiliated to the A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technological University, (herein-after the 'Technological University'), likewise the courses in the Medical** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::96:: **stream are affiliated to the Kerala University of Health Sciences (hereinafter “Health University”). The Mahathma Gandhi University (for short “MG University”) could not have conducted courses affiliated to another University and in such circumstances, at the instance of the Government, a Society was constituted with the Government's approval. This was primarily to ensure that the students who were studying in the SFI's could be continued and the teachers also accommodated; but the latter only on terms as decided by the Society. III(vii). There having occasioned change in the status of the SFI's, earlier established and run by the University, now run under the Society, there cannot be any claim for continued employment. The University hence terminated the services of the temporary employees and as a mitigating measure, as suggested by the Government, the Society, called for willingness from such employees to be continued under the Society subject to their having required qualifications. The terms of employment too, now would fall within the domain of the Society is the argument. The judgment** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::97:: **impugned in these appeals is to be upheld; is the argument since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had not taken note of the subsequent developments.** **III(viii). Sri.Surin George Ipe, the learned Standing Counsel, vehemently contends that even if this Court finds the appellants in W.A. No.156 of 2019 to be regular employees of the University, as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the appellants in the other appeals stand on a different footing. They were appointed as contractual employees and were paid consolidated pay. The judgment of the Division Bench in W.A. No.794 of 2013 and connected cases deal with only the entitlement of the said contractual employees to regular scales of pay as approved by the AICTE. The mere fact that the monthly remuneration in the contractual employment has been paid on regular scales of pay would not change the character of their employment. It is specifically pointed out that even in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, certain matters were segregated to be considered separately, since the appointment orders of those petitioners had** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::98:: **clearly stipulated the appointment to be temporary. The other appeals, it is hence urged are not covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is also submitted that in a contempt case filed by certain appellants there is an order permitting the Society to verify the qualifications and a rejection of the claim of the appellant by virtue of such verification has not been touched by the Division Bench dealing with the contempt case.** **III(ix). The University relies on the following decisions:** _**M. Ramanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala [(1973) 2 SCC 650],State of Haryana v. Des Raj Sangar [(1976) 2 SCC 844],K. Rajendran and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others [(1982) 2 SCC 273],Avas Vikas Sansthan and Another v. Avas Vikas Sansthan Engineers Association & Others [(2006) 4 SCC 132], Narayana Pillai v. Registrar, University of Kerala [1965 KLT 37],Francis v. Municipal Councillors of Kuala Lumpur [1962 (3) All E.R.],Union Public Service Commission v. Dr.Jamuna Kurup and Others [(2008) 11 SCC 10],State of West Bengal and Others v. Banibrata Ghosh and Others**_ W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::99:: _**[(2009) 3 SCC 250], AND Executive Committee of Vaish Degree College, Shamli v. Lakshmi Narain [(1976) 2 SCC 58].**_ ## **IV. THE GOVERNMENT:** **IV(i). Learned Special Government Pleader Sri. Asif M.A. put forth his arguments based on Paragraph 14 and 20 of the Counter Affidavit dated 03.03.2018. The circumstances under which the SFI's were de-linked from the University and a Society formed to run the same were elaborately explained. After the Health Sciences Act, by reason of the prohibition in Section 50 of the said Act no other University could affiliate medical courses. In that context, the Government specifically directed the University to discontinue the courses in the medical stream affiliated to M.G. University. It was in such circumstances, for the purpose of de-linking the School of Medical Education (SME), a SFI, the formation of the Society was first thought of. However, the Vice-Chancellor of the University suggested that the School of Technical and** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ## ::100:: **Applied Sciences (STAS) and University College of Teacher Education (UCTE) both SFI's also be de-linked and handed over to the Society. The reason cited by the Vice-Chancellor was the financial viability of the SFI's being put in serious jeopardy, if the medical courses are de-linked. The learned Senior Government Pleader also shows us the statistics of admissions to the Engineering Courses in the successive years which indicates a consistent decline. As of now, only 18 per cent of the seats are filled up; is the specific contention. It is in this context that the SME, STAS and UCTE were decided to be de-linked from the University to restore them as financially viable Units.** **IV(ii). The learned Special Government Pleader would contend that just as any other employer, the University also could decide to stop financially unviable institutions. The employees cannot be heard to say that the institution should be continued only for the purpose of paying salary to the employees. If such a closure is made, the employees can be terminated. Pointed reference is made to the counter affidavit of** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ## ::101:: **the State:** _**“...it is always permissible for the employer to get rid of unnecessary man power by retrenchment in accordance with law”(sic-counter affidavit para 20)**_ **. We immediately emphasise, the pertinent question raised in these appeals is whether the termination effected was in accordance with the applicable laws of retrenchment. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in** _**(2008) 2 SCC 65 State of Haryana Vs. Navneet Verma.**_ ## **V. THE SOCIETY:** **V(i). Sri.P.C Sasidharan, learned Counsel appearing for the Society would contend that the Society was not one formed by the University nor created by the Government. A Society was formed since such a suggestion arose for smooth transition of the courses carried on, affiliated to the M.G. University but now required to be affiliated to the two Universities, statutorily created. It is an independent entity with a Governing Body consisting of five members in whom is vested the powers of management. The infrastructure of the SFI's were leased out to the** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases **==> picture [37 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** **Society for which the Society pays lease rent to the M.G. University. The students were continued without any conditions and as far as the faculty is concerned, options were called for, for contractual employment on the terms as stipulated by the Society. There was no requirement on the Society, to do so, but the Governing Body agreed to the proposal of the Government, to continue the contractual employees in the SFI's taken over. The Society cannot be mulcted with the liability to pay the salary as received by the employees under the University.** **V(ii). It is argued that all the contractual employees are terminated by the University, who could claim no right for transfer of their service or continuance in the employment of the Society. The appointment in the Society of those erstwhile contractual employees of the MG University will be a fresh appointment, again on contract, for a specific period on terms dictated by the Society. This would also be on specific option exercised by each employee agreeing to such terms. Any one who fails to exercise** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::103:: **the option offered by the Society would stand terminated; not by the Society but by the University. The Society will employ the erstwhile contractual employees of the University, only on terms stipulated by the Governing Body; otherwise the Society itself would fold up as the SFI's of the University did. The running of the courses are still not financially viable. The employees of the University, whether regular or contractual cannot pray for any relief against the Society as such.** **V(iii). It is submitted that, on taking over the SFI's, it was found that continuance of many courses now carried on are not financially viable. The Society has to maintain itself and the institutions, on the fees paid by students and there is already a huge liability so far as the lease rent payable to the University. By reason of some of the courses having been abandoned there is considerable fall in the requirement of faculty and the Society would not employ any persons not qualified to be appointed as per the norms prescribed by the All India Council for Technical** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::104:: **Education (AICTE) and the UGC. The society cannot be called upon to resolve the conflict that arise between the temporary/contractual employees and the University. The Society distances itself from the University and the Government and asserts an independent distinct status.** **V(iv). Learned Counsel appearing for the Society maintains that the Society is an independent entity entitled to have its own rules and regulations and employ persons in accordance with such rules and regulations. The Society has also framed its service regulations and after its formation it had also called for willingness from the teachers who were disengaged by the University. The willingness called for, it is reiterated was not because the Society had any obligation to employ the faculty so dispensed with by the University. The employees have absolutely no jural relationship with the Society; is the specific contention urged. Those who had expressed their willingness cannot raise any claim for their conditions to be continued as they received when they were engaged** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::105:: **with the University. They had expressed their willingness for employment in the Society on the terms stipulated by the Society, without demur. It is also contended that now the engagement is on a contract for a temporary period. Considering the viability of the courses it may be made permanent in course of time. The Society does not want to fall in the same trap, the University fell into, by establishing SFI's which over the years turned nonviable, creating unnecessary burden on the University.** **V(v). The Society specifically denies the document relied on by the appellants by which 100 Crores is said to have been paid by the University to the Society. The University too denies such a transfer having been effected. The Society after its formation by the MoA had entered into an agreement with the University to use the facilities and infrastructure which was earlier used by the SFI's. For this, a rent is fixed and it is an additional liability on the Society. The Society after that has obtained affiliation from the respective Universities and is** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::106:: **carrying on the courses. The qualifications prescribed by the Society in its regulations are as per the requirements of the Apex Councils of the various professional subject-courses. It is asserted that none can challenge the rules and regulations of the newly formed Society. Those who have expressed their willingness have acquiesced to the terms offered by the Society. Those who have not expressed their willingness, are rank outsiders who have absolutely no relationship with the Society.** **V(vi). The Society relies on the following decisions:** _**K.K. Saksena v. International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage and Others [(2015) 4 SCC 670],Zee Telefilms Ltd. and Another v. Union of India and Others [(2005) 4 SCC 649],Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology and Others [(2002) 5 SCC 111], Association of Milma Officers v. State of Kerala [2015 (1) KLT 849 (L.B.)],Shaiju K. and Others - v. Alappuzha District Co operative Bank Ltd. No.4203 and Others [2018 (4) KHC 880], Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak**_ W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::107:: _**Trust and Others v. V.R. Rudani and Others [(1989) 2 SCC 691] and K.S. Sofhi v. Fertilisers & Chemicals Travancore Ltd. & Others [1984 KLT 32].**_ ## **VI. THE FACTS:** **Learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the University admits that the facts with respect to the appellants in Writ Appeals 2402 of 2018, 2394 of 2018 and 120 of 2019 are similar to that decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The notification of selection and the appointment orders did not specify that the appellants were appointed on contract or that they were temporary. In the other appeals the nature of appointment is specified as temporary and on contract. We are of the opinion that the appeals would have to be taken one by one, to better understand the separate facts and the leading case would have to be W.A NO. 156/2019.We would also notice the additional contentions raised in the individual cases, along with the facts of each of such cases; at times with our opinion expressed on certain issues. We would also refer to the decisions cited by the learned Counsel** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::108:: **along with facts and immediately notice those, we find not relevant for consideration in this case.** _**VI.[A] W.A NO. 156/2019 :**_ **[A](i). The appellants who were the writ petitioners were all appointed in the year 1995-96 in STAS. The first cause of action, for them to approach this Court with O.P No. 3818/2003, arose when they were for the first time treated as temporarily appointed teachers by two resolutions bearing Nos.1655 and 1745 dated 19[th] and 20[th] of February, 2001. The resolutions were by the Syndicate of the University which the petitioners assailed as arbitrary and discriminatory insofar as they were Lecturers in the University College of Engineering Thodupuzha, a SFI, run by the MG University under STAS. We need not look at the further facts or the basis of the documents produced n this particular case, since the Hon'ble Supreme Court has approved the judgment of the learned Single Judge which declared that the petitioners were regularly appointed permanent teachers of the University so appointed against the substantive posts created by the** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ## ::109:: **University. As we noticed, the Division Bench though held against the petitioners, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reversed the said decision.** **[A](ii). We have to necessarily quote the operative portion of the decision, which reads as follows:** **7. In the backdrop of the facts as aforesaid, the instant matter can broadly be classified under four segments: -** **a) The stand taken by the University prior to the Order dated 23.03.2001 under which pay revisions to the teachers were given from 01.01.2001 instead of from 01.01.1996 and which described the teachers of University College of Engineering as “temporarily appointment for a period of three years or more”,** **b) The effect of the stand taken in the Order dated 23.03.2001.** **c) The stand taken by the University before authorities like AICTE and later in submission of budget proposals, and** **d) The mutually inconsistent views held by two Division Benches in case of teachers of the same institution.** **8. The first document on record is the Resolution of the Syndicate dated 06.07.1996 whereunder it was resolved to create posts of teachers at various levels in engineering disciplines for** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::110:: **starting B. Tech courses. The Resolution clearly indicated that the posts of Professors and Lecturers in various branches of Engineering were without any qualification whereas by the same Resolution, posts of teachers in certain subjects like Geometrical drawing, Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics and Humanities were to be filled on contractual or part time basis. The Order issued by the University on 10.07.1996 was in tune with the Resolution dated 06.07.1996. The Notification issued thereafter inviting applications from qualified candidates for posts of teachers was also consistent with earlier Resolution and the Order issued by the University. The sanction accorded by the Vice Chancellor for constituting screening or scrutinizing Committees for selection was also in same spirit. Thus, at no stage, the posts of teachers in engineering disciplines were referred to or described as contractual or on part time basis. Same thought was carried in Resolution passed by the Syndicate in the Meeting held on 05.08.1997 for creating additional posts in engineering disciplines. The order dated 25.08.1997 passed by the University was again a reflection of the Resolution passed by the Syndicate on 05.08.1997. The appellants were appointed pursuant to selection undertaken in terms of Notification dated 15.07.1996 or Resolution dated 05.08.1997. Their appointment orders did not mention anything that the** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::111:: **appointments were contractual or on part time basis. The appointment orders in fact stated that the appointment would be governed by the provisions of the University Statutes. The subsequent Notification dated 10.03.1998 inviting applications for further additional posts was also in the same light. All these documents unequivocally suggest that the appointments of the appellants were not on contractual basis or for a limited period of time. Whenever appointments were to be for limited duration or on contractual basis, a clear stipulation was always made in the concerned Resolution or Notification. The facts on record indicate that the appointments of the appellants were on permanent basis and that they were appointed through regular selection process. The appellants are right in submitting that their appointments were on substantive basis and not on contractual basis or for limited duration of time. The facts in the first segment, therefore, are definitely in favour of the appellants.** **9. The Order issued by the University on 04.08.1999 extended the benefits of the Kerala Government Pay Revision, 1997 to the NonTeaching(Technical) staff. The Order issued by the Government of Kerala on 18.05.2000 for implementing revised scales of pay for teachers in Engineering Colleges in the State contemplated extension of revision in line with the recommendations of AICTE as approved by the** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::112:: **Government of India with effect from 01.01.1996. Though similar benefits were extended by the University to the teachers of University College of Engineering, the benefits were restricted and the effect was given from 01.01.2001 instead of 01.01.1996. No reason is available on record why such benefit was restricted and the only explanation offered is that the teachers of University College of Engineering were temporarily appointed for a period of three years or more. As the facts in the first segment indicate that the appointments of the appellants were not temporary and that they were appointed against substantive posts, which were created pursuant to resolutions passed by the concerned authorities, there was no reason to limit the scope of extension of benefits. Even the Principal of the University College of Engineering in letter dated 18.04.2001 voiced a concern that the teachers in the College were not temporary and that they would otherwise be entitled to the extension of some financial benefits. His letter in that behalf is quite eloquent. The steps taken and the stand adopted thereafter by the University is on the premise that the University College of Engineering under the School of Technical and Applied Sciences was a Self Financing Institution which was not getting any grants from the Government/All India Council and that it was not part of 20 Departments listed under the Statutes of the University. There is** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::113:: **nothing on record to indicate that when the School of Technical and Applied Sciences was set up there was any resolution or decision by the University or its competent bodies to set up such School of Technical and Applied Sciences as a separate Institution. The University had secured conditional approval from the AICTE on 31.05.1996 and had thereafter caused steps to be taken for creation of posts and appointment of teachers against said posts. The University cannot dissociate itself and claim said University college of Engineering under the School of Technical and Applied Sciences to be otherwise than part of the University.** **10. We now move to the third segment. It is interesting to note that even after such stand was taken by the University in the year 2001, in its communications with AICTE, at every stage the Faculty position in said College of Engineering was always referred to and described as permanent Faculty. Progress Profile of the existing Technical Institution prepared by AICTE which was referred to by the Single Judge is very clear that the appellants were shown to be part of permanent Faculty and were projected to be permanent employees of the University. It would not therefore be proper on part of the University to brand the very same Faculty to be on contractual basis or for a limited duration of time. It is also a matter of record that during the budget for** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::114:: **- - financial years 2015 2016 and 2016 2017, the income and expenditure of Self Financing Institutions were included in the University Fund and thus the Self Financing Institutions were within the fold of the University.** **11. The facts as culled out in these three segments, point only in one direction that the appellants were appointed against substantive posts and were always treated to be on permanent basis. At no stage were they informed either through any Resolution or through any individual communication that their appointments were temporary or contractual basis. The only document which purportedly supports the stand taken by the University is the Resolution of the statutory Finance Committee of the University held on 05.08.1997. This Resolution was brought on record only in the year 2011 through an affidavit of the University. According to this Resolution, the item was taken as an additional item on the Agenda while approving Budget Estimates and the Committee had recommended to create the posts “for a period of three years”. Ironically, on the same day a Resolution was passed by the Syndicate of the University about creation of teaching and nonteaching (technical) posts for the University College of Engineering. It is the Resolution of the Syndicate which is referred in the order passed by the University on 25.08.1997 and not the Resolution of the statutory Finance Committee. The** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::115:: **Order dated 25.08.1997 also did not qualify the posts to be limited for three years. Similarly, the document placed on record through written submissions, i.e. the Resolution of the Syndicate of the University passed in the meeting dated 22.12.1995 would again have no bearing. That was a Resolution passed when the AICTE approval was not yet granted. What is material to consider are the steps taken by the University after the approval was granted, when the posts were created, applications from the concerned candidates were invited and individual appointments were made. Those steps do not indicate any qualification or restriction insofar as the terms of employment were concerned. We, therefore, do not find anything on record which could substantiate the stand taken by the University.** **12. Lastly, we must notice a peculiar feature of the matter that even after the Division Bench had ruled against the appellants in the present matter and while their review was pending before the Division Bench, in separately instituted proceedings, the Division Bench of the same High Court had accepted similar challenge raised by some other teachers from the same Self Financing Institution and by its order dated 07.12.2016 had ruled in their favour. The order dated 07.12.2016 was affirmed by this Court and Special Leave Petitions were therefrom dismissed. We have not proceeded only on the fact that the decision of** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::116:: **the Division Bench dated 07.12.2016 having stood affirmed by this Court, nothing more is required to be done in the matter. We have gone through the record in its entirety, which record, in our view, points completely in the direction of the appellants and in their favour. We have therefore no hesitation in accepting the contentions of the appellants.** ## **(underlining suppled by us for emphasis)** **[A](iii). The issue agitated and decided in the writ petitions was whether the petitioners were appointed in the University College of Engineering, Thodupuzha against any substantive vacancies. The learned Single Judge, finding creation of vacancies by the Syndicate, declared that the petitioners are regularly appointed permanent teachers of the University appointed against substantive posts created by the University. The Hon'ble Supreme Court having restored the judgment of the learned Single Judge there cannot be any contention taken by the University based on the notification published, the appointment orders issued or the status under which they were continued in employment for all these years from 1996 onwards; which** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases **==> picture [37 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** **run contrary to the binding declaration. As to whether they can be treated as identical to teachers of the University attached to the statutorily created departments, we will look into that aspect a little later, after we have recorded the facts in each of the appeals.** **VI[B]. W.A Nos.2394/2018 & 120/2019** **VI[B](i).The appellants herein were** **appointed in the years 1997, 2000 and 2001 in the STAS. The two appeals are filed by the identical appellants, one against their termination from the University and the other against the detrimental revision of their service conditions in their purported re-employment with CPAS, the Society. Smt.Thulasi K. Raj, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants took us through the documents which evidence that the appointments made of the appellants 1 to 3 as Trade/Workshop Instructor Grade-II and 4 to 9 as Trade Instructor/Tradesman are regular and the case of the appellants are similar to that decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which is admitted by the University through their Senior** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::118:: **Counsel. However, the learned Senior Counsel makes a reservation on their continuance with the University as also their termination which latter event, as argued by him is a necessary consequence of the abolition of the posts with the University. In that circumstance, we looked at the facts as pointed out by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants.** **[B](ii). Ext.P1 is the creation of posts made by the Syndicate on 10.07.1996, an order which is akin to that extracted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cited judgment. Ext.P2 is the notification under which the appellants 4 to 9 applied and Ext.P3 is the notification under which appellants 1 to 3 applied. Ext.P2 speaks of the appointments being governed by the provisions of the M.G University Act, Statutes and** **Ordinances applicable thereunder. Though Ext.P3 Newspaper notification does not contain such a stipulation, it is pertinent that the notification speaks of communal reservation as prescribed in the University Statutes being observed in filling up of the posts. Ext.P5 series are the appointment orders which** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::119:: **refer to the appointment being governed by the Statutes of 1997 and pertinently there is no qualification as to the appointments being temporary or contractual. Ext.P6 - is the sanction issued by the Vice Chancellor for the appointment of seven of the appellants herein. Ext.P7 series evidences that the probation of all the appellants were declared. The appellants assert that there was a service book maintained in the University with respect to the service of all the appellants and illustratively Ext.P10 is produced. A Service book is maintained in the University only for permanent employees, goes the argument.** **[B](iii). Ext.P11 series is the statement of fixation of pay in the revised scales, which indicates the employee number, the post occupied and even the date of retirement of each of the appellants. It is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel for the University that the statement of fixation of pay was issued by the Principal who himself was temporary. However, we notice that Ext.P10 is an order issued by the M.G University through its Finance Officer. We also** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::120:: **take into account the submission of the learned Counsel that there is no specific denial of the claim raised on the basis of these documents in the counter affidavit filed by the University, which is one adopted from that filed in W.A 156/2019. Pertinent also is Ext.P13 Electoral Roll to the Senate, which includes all of the nine appellants. The M.G University Statutes 1997 as per Statute 21 Chapter 44 clearly indicates such inclusion only of permanent employees.** **[B](iv). Ext.P15 Memorandum of Association (for brevity “MoA') of CPAS is pointed out to contend that as per Clause 11, the appellants are to be construed as permanent regular employees deployed from the University. The appellants from the date of their initial appointment are said to have been continued till February, 2019, uninterruptedly. Abruptly they were issued with Ext.P29 series of orders which informed them that since they had not submitted their willingness to work under the CPAS, they cannot be continued. It has to be noticed that this is in violation of the interim order passed by this Court in** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::121:: **the writ petitions as also the writ appeal wherein there was a specific direction not to change the service conditions of the appellants. The learned Counsel appearing for the CPAS points out that the interim order was only against the University. We will deal with that issue later.** **[B](v). On the legal issues the learned Counsel has three points; (i) with respect to the security of tenure in public employment for which she places on record two decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in** _**(1986) 1 SCC 675 [Union of India v. Arun Kumar Roy]**_ **and** _**(2016) 6 SCC 1 [State of Punjab v. Brijeshwar Singh Chahal]**_ **. The second point urged by the learned Counsel is on the legal malice as is evident from the action of the University in abruptly terminating the appellants after having regularly employed and continued in service, for considerable period of time. The learned Counsel relies on the decision in** _**Kalabharati Advertising v. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania and others [(2010) 9 SCC 437]**_ **. Lastly the learned Counsel contends that the appellants having been** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::122:: **continued for long years as regular employees have a vested right to be continued till they superannuate as per the Act, Statutes, and Ordinances of the University. The learned Counsel places reliance on** _**(2011) 6 SCC 570 [Yadav J.S. v. State of U.P. and (2014) 13 SCC 583 [ MGB Gramin Bank v Chakrawarti Singh]**_ **[B](vi).** _**Arun Kumar Roy, was**_ **confined to the question of whether the termination was improper since the notice pay was not paid along with the termination order, which was considered on the nature and terms of that appointment. Pertinently there the termination order offered the amounts payable on termination, which was to be paid later. Here there was no such offer and the abrupt termination was just that and offered nothing, not even notice pay.** _**Brijeshwar Singh Chahal,**_ **also according to us has no relevance for it deals with Government Counsel and the need to have a transparent procedure to find out the meritorious in public interest.** _**Yadav J.S.,**_ **dealt with a tenure appointment made properly and as per the qualifications prescribed** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::123:: **by the statute. The qualification stood amended, not retrospectively, and the incumbent properly appointed was held to have a vested right to continue, which again has no application here. The decision in** _**MGB Gramin Bank**_ **only explains what a vested right is; which will have to be considered with reference to the State's power to abolish posts in good faith.** **VI[C] W.A. No.2402 of 2018:** **VI[C](i). The appellants, two in number, were appointed as Reader in Computer Applications respectively in 1996 and 1998 in the STAS. Sri. Santhosh Mathew, learned Counsel asserts that their status is akin to that of the cases dealt with above, which is admitted by the University. The invitation of applications, the Memos of appointment and the Order issued by the University are respectively produced as Ext.'s P1, P2,P6 and P3. These documents did not indicate any qualification as temporary or contractual and specified that the service would be regulated by the MGU Statutes. Both the appellants gave up their employments in Manipal Institute of Technology and** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases **==> picture [37 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** **their pay drawn with that institution was protected by Ext.'s: P4&P8 orders. The appointments were challenged in a writ petition, on grounds of the appointees lacking the necessary qualification which stood rejected by Ext.P10 judgment finding both appellants to be qualified; against which an appeal, though filed was withdrawn. Later the probation of the appellants were declared by Ext.P5.** **[C](ii) It is pointed out that the Special Rules framed by the University for the SFI's specifically covered the temporary, contract, guest and external guest teachers of SFI's and not the appellants who had permanent employee status with the University. The Special Rules provided for appointments even by walk-in-interview which procedure could be followed only in the case of temporary employees covered by the Special Rules. The appellants were selected and appointed through a procedure approved by the Act and Statutes. The appellants are Teachers of the University and are entitled to continue till they superannuate; which age as in the case of Department Teachers would** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::125:: **be at 60, is the compelling argument.** **[C](iii). Learned Counsel would also point out that the State and the University are labouring under a misapprehension that the University cannot carry on an Engineering Course after the Technological University was established. The Technological University Act, by Section 60 saves a technological branch maintained by other Universities in the State from its jurisdiction. The AICTE Act, 1987 also does not require an approval from itself, to a course carried out by a University as has been held in** _**Bharathidasan University Vs. AICTE (2001) 8 SCC 676,**_ **setting at naught the amendment to AICTE Regulations of 1994 which required approval for such courses carried on by Universities, is the argument. Immediately we have to notice that all concede that even if a course in engineering is carried on by an University without approval from the AICTE, it may affect the employment prospects of the person as a professional. The certificate awarded can only be an academic graduation, sans an approval from the apex technological body, the AICTE. We also notice that** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::126:: **there is no prohibition in the Technological University Act or the MGU Act, for the MG University to carry on a technical course with affiliation from the former. This aspect, we find, to be totally irrelevant in deciding the issue in the context of the MG University having decided to stop the SFI's and a Society having taken up the same and obtained affiliation from the Technological University. We are not to sit in judgment of policy decisions and in these batch are only concerned with the consequences visiting the faculty and certain non-teaching staff employed in the SFI's by reason only of the change in policy and the status of their employment; whether temporary or permanent. VI[D]. W.A. No:2354 of 2018** **[D](i). The appellant was appointed as Lecturer in the School of Applicable Mathematics in the year 1994 and after it was wound up, continued in the STAS. Sri.Babu Varghese, the learned Senior Counsel, submitted that this appellant had initiated the first case challenging the turn about made by the University in categorising regularly appointed persons as** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases **==> picture [37 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** **temporary and contractual. The appellant, who was working as Lecturer in Mathematics, filed WP(C) No.1499/2009 aggrieved by the denial of UGC/AICTE scales of pay and also claimed Career Advancement Programme (CAP) benefits. She was initially appointed for a period of one year, but this was extended from time to time up to 05.02.2001. The tenure of the petitioner stood extended by the decision of the Syndicate. The appellant contended that though similarly situated teachers have been granted UGC/ AICTE scales of pay, it was denied to her. The stand taken by the University was also that the petitioner was appointed on a contract basis.** **[D](ii). The learned Single Judge, as per Ext.P1 judgment dated 27.05.2009, found that there was no justifiable reason for discriminating the petitioner from the other teachers, who were granted scales of pay as stipulated by the UGC/ AICTE. The other teachers were also found to be appointed on contract basis, as was the case with the petitioner, but continued without break in service. It was also directed that the** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::128:: **petitioner would be granted scales of pay as has been granted in the case of others. The University filed an appeal, in which Ext.P2 decision came. The Division Bench found that it is a fallacy to say that the petitioner continues to be a contract appointee and she cannot be given the benefit given to other similarly placed faculty. The appeal stood dismissed. Special Leave Petition filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was rejected and a review filed also met with the same fate as is seen from Exts.P3 & P4. A later writ petition, which challenged denial of increment was also disposed of, directing consideration of a representation, as per Ext.P5. It is the judgment rendered in favour of the appellant, that led to a spate of litigations in which the Division Bench in W.A. No.794 of 2011 and connected cases, reiterated the stand of the earlier Division Bench in the case of the appellant herein.** **[D](iii). The Division Bench, by Ext.P5, allowed the claim of regular scales of pay to the writ petitioners following the judgment of the appellant. It** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::129:: **is the specific case of the University that even this decision found that the appointments were contractual in nature and that the declaration was only with respect to the entitlement of regular scales of pay as was granted to the other teachers on the principle of equal pay for equal work. This does not change the nature of employment of the petitioners, is the defence set up.** **VI(E). W.A.No:2351 of 2018, W.A.Nos:2473, 2512 & 2460 of 2018 & 364 of 2019 [E](i). Sri.Babu Varghese appears for these appellants also. W.A. No.2351/18 is filed by Dr.Joji Anchanattu, Dr.S. Krishna Kumar and Dr.N.V. Eldhose, who were originally granted UGC/AICTE approved scales of pay; which led to the first litigation as initiated by Dr.Bijamma Thomas. The first appellant was appointed on 09.05.1994 and petitioners 2 & 3 were appointed on 07.10.1994. The terms of appointment indicates that it is a contractual appointment for one year, but which could be continued. The appointment order at Exts.P1 & P3 is the order issued by the** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ## ::130:: **University itself to place these appellants in the revised scale of pay. Ext.P4 is the declaration of probation and Ext.P6 is the order by which senior scale was granted. They were continued uninterruptedly over the years. Ext.P8 is the Counter Affidavit filed in one Anilkumar’s case, claiming similar grant as in the case of the three appellants. In paragraph 13 the grant of regular scales of pay and upgradation to senior scale of the three appellants was admitted. But it was averred that this was despite there being no legal right for such grant. We cannot but observe that it is a thoroughly irresponsible statement made by a University, especially when similarly placed persons were denied of that benefit and they were dragged to this Court, for getting the same benefit.** **[E](ii). All these factors were specifically emphasized by the Division Bench in the common judgment in W.A. No.794/13 and connected cases. In fact when Ext.P9 was issued by the Government to withdraw the benefits of senior scale given to the appellants, the appellants had filed WP (c) No.2148 of 2011, which was** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::131:: **tagged along with the writ appeals. The Division Bench specifically set aside the orders of withdrawal of benefits and found the grant of scales of pay to be proper as granted to the others. The Division Bench has, in paragraph 34 made specific reference to the finances available with the University, which negatives the contention of the University that the SFIs are financially unviable. Audit reports are also produced as Annexure A1 in the appeal to point that that the University has sufficient funds by way of fees received from the students in the SFI's. It is pointed out that the Calicut University is even now carrying on an Engineering College as is the case with the Cochin University. The Kannur University also is said to be carrying on Paramedical courses. The learned Senior Counsel relies on Exts.P22 & P23 to substantiate that contention. With reference to Ext.P19(a) it is submitted that the non-teaching staff, who were appointed in the SFIs, when it was de-linked from the University, were given appointments with the University.** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::132:: **[E](iii). On the question of appointment of non-teaching staff, it is specifically contended by the University that the appointments were made from a list drawn up, for selection to comparable posts in the University. During the validity period of the list, appointments were made to the SFI's, in the posts available there. When the SFI's were de-linked from the University, the non-teaching staff, who were appointed as per a regular selection, were entitled to be continued in the University. The University thus continued the non-teaching staff in the University itself, which would not enable the teaching faculty, who were appointed only on contract for a temporary period, is the argument.** **[E](iv). The appellant in W.A. No.2512 of 2018 joined the service of the University on 07.02.2001 after a due process of selection, as a Lecturer in the UCTE. Ext.P2 is the appointment order, which indicates that the persons named therein were appointed on a contract basis in a scale of pay for a period of one year. The appellant, along with others having NCTE** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::133:: **qualification, were sanctioned a higher scale of pay as per Ext.P3. Later, by Ext.P4 dated 20.06.2013, the appellant joined as Principal in the UCTE, Nedungandom, again on contract. Though the appellant's service was styled as a contract, he had been uninterruptedly continued in the service of the University on regular scales of pay. The appellant while joining as Principal, had sought for protection of pay, which he was drawing as a Lecturer, which was said to have been initially allowed, but later withdrawn. The appellant was before this Court claiming the benefit of protection of pay, which writ appeal was allowed as per Ext.P6. It was found that the appellant, along with others, had sought for drawing regular scales of pay as Lecturer following the decision in W.A. No.819 of 2013. The Division Bench in Ext.P6 directed the appellant's salary to be disbursed in accordance with the decision in W.A. No.819 of 2013. The appellant was also terminated from the University citing the cause of the University having decided to shut down the SFIs.** **[E](v). The appellant in W.A. No.364 of 2019** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::134:: **joined as Lecturer in Health Management in the Health Management Division of SME. He had continuous service of 14 years, when he was terminated, having joined first on 18.10.2003. The memo of appointment of the appellant dated 09.05.2003 is produced as Ext.P1 and the order of aproval of appointment is at Ext.P2 dated 03.12.2003. The appellant in W.A. No.2460 of 2018 was appointed on 17.01.2001 as a Lecturer in Computer Science in STAS and had put in 16 years of continuous service. The memo of appointment dated 01.08.2001 is produced as Ext.P1. The appellant was also before this Court claiming regular scales of pay, which was granted as per Ext.P2 judgment, which followed the decision in Dr.Bijamma Thomas's case. The appellant in W.A. No.2473 of 2018 was appointed as Lecturer in Computer Science in the STAS and has 17 years of service having joined initially on 14.12.2000. The appellant had also filed WP(C) No.19540 of 2009 before this Court claiming UGC/AICTE scales of pay, which is allowed as per Ext.P2 judgment, following the decision in Dr.Bijamma Thomas's case.** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::135:: **[E](vi). The learned Senior Counsel relied on the following authorities to advance the proposition stated against each of the said decisions:** _**Santosh Yadav (Smt) v. State of Haryana and Others [(1996) 9 SCC 320]**_ **held that termination of service, after validly renewing service from time to time and ensuring regulation of service, is violation of Arts.14 and 16 of the Constitution.** _**Municipal Council, Nangal and Others v. Aruna Saini [(2017) 4 SCC 645]**_ **when termination is illegal and arbitrary, he/she should be entitled to, reinstatement and back wages.** _**Dr.M.S. Mudhol and Another v. S.D. Halegkar and Others [(1993) - 3 SCC 591]:**_ **Even if a Selection Committee has wrongly selected and made appointments and allowed a teacher or Principal to continue in service, such appointments cannot be disturbed at a later stage.** _**Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community and Another v. State of - Maharashtra and Another [(2005) 2 SCC 673]:**_ **Judicial discipline demands that smaller Bench cannot disagree with the view taken by the larger Bench.** _**Abdu Rahiman v. District Collector, Malappuram [2009 (4) KLT 485**_ W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::136:: _**DB]:**_ **- Single Bench has to follow the decision of the Division Bench. We do not think the two immediately cited decisions are relevant in the context of the present case. The learned Single Judge followed a Division Bench(W.A 442/14), which was in force at the time of pronouncement. There is nothing to show that the other decision in W.A. No.794/13 was urged at the time of hearing.** _**Marathwada University v. Seshrao Balwant Rao Chavan [(1989) 3 SCC 132]:**_ **- A statutory body or authority can only exercise powers as prescribed by the statutes. Statutory Body cannot travel beyond the powers conferred and any action without power has no legal validity. Ratification cannot cure an ultra vires action.** _**VI[F]. W.A. No.2380 of 2018:**_ **VI[F](i). The appellant was appointed on 04.03.1994 in the Engineering College at Muttom, Thodupuzha under STAS. Learned Senior Counsel Dharmadan appearing for the appellant would contend that the case of the appellant is almost similar to that in W.A. No.2354/18 and that there are decisions** _**inter partes**_ **,** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::137:: **which settles the matter as to the nature of employment of the appellant. The appellant’s employment was found to be similar to that of Bijamma Thomas, who is the appellant in W.A. No.2354/18. This Court by Ext.P1, had specifically found that he was similarly placed as lecturers Dr.Joji J.Anchanattu, Dr.S.Krishnakumar and Dr.N.V.Eldhose. The probation of the petitioner was directed to be declared and the claim for senior scale was also directed to be considered. The University filed an appeal from the above judgment, which was dealt with in the common decision of the Division Bench as per Ext.P2. The appellant, who commenced his service as a Lecturer, was found to be now working as the Head of the Department of Polymer Science in the STAS. Ext.P2 judgment was upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by Ext.P3. Ext.P2 judgment having found that the appellant was regularly appointed, there could not be a different view taken by the University as of now.** **[F](ii). The learned Senior Counsel would specifically refer to the reliefs prayed for, which seeks a certiorari in so far as the decisions taken by** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::138:: **the University to wind up the SFI and form a Society. The affidavit of the University is pointed out to assert that the Society is under the direct management of the Government, as is very evident from the Governing Body constituted. The Division Bench judgment of this Court at Ext.P2 came on 07.12.2016 and on 17.07.2017 a decision was taken by the University to scuttle the SFI's. This was intended at defeating the decision of this Court and ensuring that none of the teaching faculty; continued uninterruptedly for long periods, who have also obtained orders of this Court to be paid regular scales of pay, would enjoy the fruits of such litigation. It is pointed out that the formation of Society would not and cannot nullify the binding decisions of this Court as upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.** **[F](iii). The provisions in the MGU Act are pointed out to contend that Section 10(17) being the emergency provisions cannot be invoked to nullify the decision of this Court. Reliance is placed on** _**D. Leelakrishnan v. Cochin University [1997 (1) KLT 281]**_ **.** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::139:: **We do not think the invocation of the emergency clause has any relevance in deciding the issue since a decision so made or properly taken by the Syndicate cannot negative a decision of this Court and hence we would not speak further on that.** _**Somasekharan Unni v. M.G. University [2015 (4) KLT 410]**_ **is relied on to contend that the University has a duty to maintain and run the Self Financing College established by it. Having held out a promise of regular employment, especially by continuing the petitioner and others for long periods; in the case of the petitioner more than 20 years, there can be no termination on the ground of contractual appointment. The appellant also has the required qualification to be continued in the post from which he was terminated and the finding on the contrary cannot be sustained. Reliance is placed on G** _**ijo Ittoop v. Kerala University of Fisheries [2018 (4) KHC 285,**_ **to drive home that point. Gijo Ittoop held that the High Court under Article 226 will not delve into issues of whether a particular subject is relevant to a particular discipline. We also do not propose to look** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::140:: **into the qualifications of individuals.** **[F](iv). It is also contended that the appellant was unceremoniously removed from the post and he was also proceeded against for recovery of amounts paid in the senior scale, which was granted as per the judgment of this Court. It is conceded that a writ petition is pending against the recovery, in which there is a stay granted. There is a further recovery threatened when the said writ petition and the above writ appeal is pending. It is also argued that despite an interim order in the instant writ appeal; not to vary or deny the service benefits until the disposal of the writ appeals, the appellant remains outside service. The appellant had refused to exercise an option to continue under the CPAS on the terms dictated by the said Society which cannot prejudice him at all in claiming the relief of continuance as a regular employee of the University, goes the argument.** _**VI[G].W.A. Nos: 2350,2362 and 2397 of 2018 and 5& 14 of 2019.**_ **[G](i). W.A. No.2350 of 2018 is filed by 8** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::141:: **petitioners, who were appointed in the SME under the Nursing Department. The first appointment of the petitioners were on various dates between 1997 to 2001. The 1st petitioner was appointed as Assistant Professor by Ext.P1(a) dated 06.12.1997. The 2nd petitioner in the same post by Exts.P10 & P11 dated 28.09.1998 and 06.11.1998. The probation of petitioners 1 & 2 were declared w.e.f. 03.11.1998 as per Ext.P3. Both the petitioners were promoted as Associate Professor respectively in 1999 and 2004 and then promoted as Professor in 2001 and 2009. The probation of the petitioners in the promoted posts were also declared. The 3rd petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in Nursing with effect from 16.10.1998 and probation declared w.e.f. 21.10.2000. The 4th petitioner was appointed as Assistant Lecturer on 20.09.1996 and the probation declared w.e.f. 04.11.1999. She was promoted then as Lecturer and Assistant Professor by order dated 18.01.2010. Her probation in the post of Lecturer was** **declared on 24.06.2000. The 5th petitioner was appointed as Lecturer on 03.07.1999 and Senior Lecturer** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::142:: **on 01.07.2007, later promoted as Assistant Professor by order dated 05.01.2010. The 6th petitioner joined as Lecturer by virtue of order dated 06.11.1998 and her probation was declared w.e.f. 05.10.1999. The 6th petitioner having acquired Post Graduate Degree in Nursing, while she was in employment, she was placed in the revised scale of pay on such acquisition. The 7th petitioner joined as Lecturer by virtue of order dated 24.07.2000 and her probation declared w.e.f.** **22.03.2001. The 8th petitioner joined as Lecturer on 12.06.2001 and her probation declared w.e.f. 11.06.2002. Ext.P12 is the order according sanction of the teachers' appointed temporarily to be paid in accordance with UGC/AICTE scales of pay, subject to only completion of period of probation. It also permitted drawing of increments in the revised pay scales.** **[G](ii) The appellants in W.A. No.2397 of 2018 were terminated from the School of STAS, wherein they st were holding the posts of Regional Director [1 appellant], Reader [appellants 2 to 4] and Lecturer [5th** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::143:: **appellant]. The 1st appellant was appointed on 15.05.1998 and his probation was declared on 26.04.1999. He was promoted as Senior Lecturer in 1998 and Reader in 2003. He was deputed as a Director, to the AICTE and was assigned the designation of Regional Director in 2005 as also in 2014. He was the Director of STAS in 2016. The 2nd appellant was appointed on 22.06.1999 and his probation declared on 23.07.2001. He was granted promotion as Senior Lecturer in 2003 and Reader in 2010. While he was working in the University, he was granted two years' and 7 months' leave for employment abroad as Post Doctoral Research Associate in the University of Kent, United Kingdom. The leave was sanctioned as per the relevant provisions of the Kerala Service Rules, 1956 under the Faculty Improvement Programme. The 3rd appellant was appointed on 17.04.1998 and her probation was declared on 10.03.1999. She was promoted as Senior Grade Lecturer in 2004 and Reader in 2007. Her probation in the post of Reader was declared on 04.05.2001. She was permitted to undertake research for the acquisition of Doctorate** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::144:: **Degree under the Faculty Improvement Programme. The 4th appellant was appointed on 17.04.1998, whose probation was declared on 09.03.1999 and was then promoted as Senior Grade Lecturer in 2002 and Reader in 2007. The 5th appellant was appointed on 28.04.1998 and his probation declared on 10.03.1999. He was promoted as Senior Grade Lecturer in 2003 and Selection Grade in 2010. The selection of the appellants were conducted in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Statutes and the appointments were declared to be in accordance with M.G. University Statutes and Ordinances in the appointment order itself.** **[G](iii). W.A. No.2462 of 2018 projects the case of the sole appellant, who applied in accordance with Ext.P1 notification dated 22.01.1997 and was appointed as Lecturer by Ext.P2 memo dated 18.04.2000. Her probation was declared as per Ext.P3 dated 18.07.2001. The appellant places reliance on the judgment in W.A. No.3639 of 2001 by a Division Bench of this Court produced at Ext.P5, in which certain persons similarly appointed as Lecturers in the STAS were** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::145:: **granted regular scales of pay. W.A. No.5 of 2019 is filed by the appellant in W.A. No.2397 of 2018 and W.A. No.14 of 2019 by the appellant in W.A. No.2462 of 2018. Hence no elaboration on the facts is required in the said appeals.** **[G](iv). Sri.George Poonthottam, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, would in fact specifically refer to the Approval Process Handbook of AICTE and Appendix VII, wherein Faculty requirements and cadre ratio [UG] is shown at item No.7.2. After a table indicating the maintenance of Faculty-student ratio based on sanctioned intake: a Note declares so:** _**“Of which a minimum of 80% should be regular/full-time Faculty and remaining may be Adjunct Faculty/ Resource persons from industry”(sic).**_ **An Adjunct faculty is an additional faculty and read with the words 'resource persons from the industry', it can only be guest faculty and not** _**adhoc**_ **appointments made; when there is a condition for creation of regular posts. Hence the University's contention that they had informed AICTE of the permanent status of the faculty,** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::146:: **only subject to the continuance of the SFI's cannot be countenanced and it fails miserably.** _**VI[H].W.A. Nos.2410, 2412 & 2413 of 2018 and 188 of 2019**_ **VI[H](i). Sri.K.P. Sudheer, learned Counsel, appears for the appellants herein, who are employed as Assistant Professors and Senior Lecturers in the Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, SME. The learned Counsel meticulously took us through the facts of W.A. No.2413 of 2018. Ext.P1 dated 13.01.1997 is the order of the Syndicate of the University sanctioning formation of core faculty and creation of posts. There are a total of 26 posts of Lecturers created in the Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences. The orders referred to in Ext.P1 are also relevant. The first order read in Ext.P1 is one dated 08.10.1996, by which the AICTE granted approval to B.Pharm courses conducted by the SME subject to certain conditions. As evident from Ext.P1 itself, creation of core faculty posts, is a pre-condition for approval of the courses and appointment of regular teaching staff is a condition to** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::147:: **be fulfilled by the University. It is pursuant to such conditional approval to the B.Pharm course that the Director, SME issued a communication dated 26.11.1996 proposing creation of core faculty posts in the Pharmacy and Nursing Department on a regular basis. By Ext.P2, in 1997, the Director, SME wrote to the AICTE informing the creation of 14 permanent posts in the teaching Faculty and 60 non-teaching posts as per the AICTE pattern. Ext.P2 also indicated that the State Government pay scales have been approved for the posts so created. Ext.P3 dated 05.02.1997 is the notification issued by the University inviting applications from qualified candidates on scales of pay, which raises a valid presumption that they are regular appointments proposed. Further, Ext.P3 notification, at the 'General Instruction' speaks of communal reservation as prescribed in the University Statutes.** **[H](ii). Paragraph 3 & 6 of Ext.P20 communication dated 22.08.1997, issued by, none other than the Vice-Chancellor of the MG University to the Secretary, Pharmacy Council of India [for brevity, 'the** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::148:: ## **PCI'] reads as here under:** **"3. Teaching staff with M.Pharm qualification has been appointed in both the Centres. A list of teaching staff, as** **working on today, is enclosed herewith."** **xxx xxx xxx** **"6. Re-structuring the staff as per the AICTE norms and the implementation of the AICTE pay scales has been decided by the University. The posts have already been created, notified, applications have been invited and the regular appointments will be made within a month. The appointment is made as per the provision of the AICTE."** **The contentions now raised by the University are totally contrary to the assurances made by the University as far back as in 1997; which also is a precondition for approval.** **[H](iii). Ext.P5 dated 16.07.1998 is the selection memo of the appellant in W.A. No.2413/18, wherein it is specifically stated that the appointment** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::149:: **would be governed by the provisions in the MG University Statutes. Ext.P8 dated 04.08.1998 is the communication issued by the Registrar, M.G. University to the Secretary, PCI which declares that the University has** _**"appointed one Principal, one Associate Professor, two Assistant Professors and 13 Lecturers for the Cheruvandoor Campus on regular basis with AICTE pay scales"(sic).**_ **The University granted administrative sanction for the appointment of Lecturers by Ext.P4 dated 22.08.1998, wherein the appellant is at Sl.No.17. Ext.P4 also refers to Ext.P1 order dated 13.01.1997, whereby the posts were created. Ext.P18 dated 01.03.2000 is the order issued by the University for declaration of probation of teachers in pursuance to which the appellant's probation was declared by Ext.P6 dated 13.10.2000. Ext.P19 dated 01.09.2003 is the order issued by the University permitting the teaching Faculty to draw increments in the revised UGC/AICTE scale of pay.Ext.P9 dated 26.11.2000 also points to the nature of appointment and the status, the appellant had in the University when he was continued, uninterrupted,** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::150:: **for more than 20 years. Abruptly, by Ext.P10 dated 06.01.2017, the CPAS was formed and the transfer of the SFIs were made by the University as per Ext.P11 dated 21.04.2017 and the appellant terminated by Ext.P15 dated 01.08.2017.** **[H](iv). The appellants in W.A Nos. 2410 & 2412 of 2018 & 188/2019, also represented by learned Counsel Sri.K.P Sudheer adopt the very same contentions as argued in W.A No.2413/2018. The appellants 1 and 2 in W.A No.2410/2018 are Assistant Professors and the 3rd appellant Senior Lecturer in the Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, SME. The 1st appellant was appointed as per Ext.P2 dated 22.08.1998 and the other appellants by Ext.P3 dated 22.09.1998. The declaration of probation of the appellants was occasioned by Ext.P4 dated 13.10.2000 with effect from the various dates shown therein. The appellants 1 and 2 were also given fixation of pay as is seen from Exts.P7 and P8. The appellants in W.A No. 2412 of 2018 are Senior Lecturers in the very same Department of SME. The appellants had applied as per Ext.P3 notification dated 21.02.2003.** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::151:: **The proceedings of the selection committee is produced at Ext.P4 dated 05.08.2003 wherein the appellants are at Serial Nos. 1,3,2 and 7. The 1st appellant was selected as per memo dated 12.02.2004 produced as Ext.P5 and the others by similar memos. Ext.P8 is also the approval of appointments in the 26 posts of Lecturers created by the University. The declaration of probation of the appellants is evidenced from Ext.P6 dated 06.01.2009.** _**VI[I]. W.A No.1156/2019:**_ **VI[I](i).Sri.T.C.Govindaswami, learned** **Counsel appearing for the appellant, points out that Ext.P1 appointment order though has a qualification that appointment will be temporary, it also speaks of the possibility of it being permanent. The appellant was appointed as per Ext.P1 dated 04.01.2006 and joined service on 09.01.2006. From then he was continued in service on his regular scales of pay and his probation was declared w.e.f 09.01.2007. The appellant who was appointed as Lecturer in Nursing was promoted as Assistant Professor by Ext.P2 order dated 18.10.2010.** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::152:: **The appellant was also granted UGC scales of pay and all these together would show that the nature of appointment was permanent. The appellant had given willingness to be employed in the CPAS but only on the threat of termination. The appellant hence has challenged Ext.P6 Rules relating to qualification and appointment and service conditions of CPAS to the extent it seeks to alter the service conditions of the appellant, who is a regular employees of the University, as governed by the University Statutes.** _**VI[J]. W.A Nos.2415 & 2420/2018 and W.A Nos.423 & 663/2019:**_ **[J](i). Sri.K.P. Satheesan, learned Senior Counsel, appears for the appellants. The appellant in W.A No.2415/2018 joined SME in the Department of Physiotherapy as is evidenced from Ext.P1 dated 10.07.2000. Her probation was declared following the order in Contempt Case No. 1417/2017. The contempt case arose from the judgment dated 07.12.2016, in W.A No. 777/2013 and connected cases wherein the appellant was the respondent, which is produced at Ext.P2. The** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::153:: **appellant was also granted scale of pay in pursuance to the Contempt case. The 1st appellant in W.A No. 2420/2018 joined in the Microbiology Department of SME as per Ext.P1 dated 10.04.1996. The appellants 2, 3 and 4 joined in the Physiotherapy Department respectively as per Ext.P1(a) dated 10.07.2000, Ext.P1(c) dated 14.01.1997 and Ext.P1(b) dated 01.12.2000. Similar to the appellants in the earlier appeals they were also respondents in W.A No.777/2013 and pursuant to a Contempt Case their probations were declared by Ext.P6 respectively with effect from 09.04.2004, 10.06.2008 and 14.12.2003. They were also similarly granted scales of pay in the posts in which they were continued. The probation of the 4th appellant was declared on 25.02.2009.** **[J](ii). The appellants in W.A No.423/2019 were all appointed as Lecturers in STAS respectively on 11.01.2007, 16.11.2006, 24.04.2010 and 28.04.2010. They were granted scales of pay and probation was declared in the case of appellants 1 and 2. The probation of the 3rd and 4th appellants has not yet been declared but they** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::154:: **were the respondents in W.A No. 828/2013 which was allowed as per judgment dated 07.12.2016 which is the common judgment in W.A 794/13 and connected cases.** **[J](iii). The appellants in W.A No. 663/2019 have not been produced their appointment orders and it cannot be verified as to the nature of their appointment and there is no declaration of probation in their cases. They have been continuing only for 2 to 4 years when they were terminated. They have also not approached this Court for any declaration of their status, in employment.** _**VI[K]. W.A No.260/2019**_ **Sri. Jomy George appears for the sole appellant, who was appointed as Lecturer in the Nursing School of SME by Ext.P1 dated 05.08.1999. The appointment order indicates at Ext.P1 to be temporary for a period of three years. However, Ext.P2 notification dated 15.06.1998 under which the appellant got selected did not have any such qualification. The probation of the appellant was declared as per Ext.P5 dated 18.06.2001. Ext.P6 is the pay fixation order** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::155:: **which is relied on by the University to contend that there was a condition that the University would be free to withdraw the higher benefits and dispose of the service as and when the Department is found financially unviable. By Ext.P8 on 29.10.2008, higher scale was granted to the petitioner for reason of acquisition of post graduation. On 18.01.2010 as per Ext.P9 the petitioner was provisionally promoted as Assistant Professor. Though the petitioner had given Ext.P15 willingness it is contended that the same was under duress.** _**VI[L]. W.A Nos.2484/2018 & 2485/2018:**_ **[L](i). Sri.Jaju Babu, Senior Counsel appears for the appellants herein who were appointed in the Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences in SME. The appellants in W.A No.2484/2015 were appointed respectively on 20.07.1998 (Ext.P1) (A-1), 17.07.1998 (Ext.P1) (A-2), 20.07.1998 (Ext.P1) (A-3), 16.12.2004(Ext.P5)(A-4), 03.08.1998(Ext.P2)(A-5), 28.07.1998(Ext.P2)(A-6), 25.02.2000(Ext.P4)(A-7),** **29.07.1998(Ext.P1)(A-8). The notification under which** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::156:: **the appellants applied, Ext.P6 and P7 specifically stated that the communal reservation as prescribed in the University Statutes will be observed. The appellants were appointed on regular scales of pay. Ext.P8, a notification by MG University is specifically referred to which speaks of the Director, SME having submitted proposals for the creation of core faculty in Pharmacy and Nursing Departments on a regular basis which was referred to in the earlier appeals with respect to the Nursing Schools. The appellants were given AICTE scales of pay and annual increments and all of them were promoted as Assistant Professors and Senior Lecturers.** **[L](ii). W.A No. 2485/2018 deals with two appellants appointed in UCTE who were initially appointed as Lecturers on contract basis in 1995 and 1992 respectively. Later in 1999 the Syndicate of the University created 12 posts of Principals and 24 posts of Lecturers as per Ext.P1. Ext.P2 is the notification inviting application for appointment as Principal and Lecturer. The 1st appellant pursuant to selection** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::157:: **process was appointed on 04.11.1999 as Lecturer in Mathematics and 2nd appellant joined duty on 01.11.1999 as Lecturer in Social Sciences in the UCTE as evidenced from Ext.P3. Both the appellants were relieved when appointed as Principal by Exts.P4 and P5 respectively on 07.03.2006. The appellants thus continued as Lecturers from 1999 to 2006 and then were appointed as Principals. The appellants were the petitioners in W.P(C) No.14853/2011 claiming regularisation of service which was allowed by judgment dated 11.02.2019 directing the grant of scale of pay in the post of Principal from the date on which the appellants were appointed and also the difference in scales of pay applicable to Lecturers between 2004 and 2006.** _**VI[M]. W.A.Nos.2399,2480,2502 and 2514/2018:**_ **[M](i). Sri.N.N.Sugunapalan, learned Senior Counsel appears for the appellants. The three appellants in W.A.No.2399/2018 joined in the SME respectively on 02.01.1996, 08.12.1998 and 13.5.1999. The first appellant was appointed as Lecturer in Hospital Administration and the appellants 2 and 3 as** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::158:: **Lecturers in Computer Engineering and Biochemistry respectively, in the Departments of Bio Medical Instrumentation and Medical Biochemistry. They were appointed on contract. But, however, as in the other cases, were continued uninterruptedly for more than 18 to 20 years. The first appellant was also promoted as Assistant Professor on 02.01.1997. The appellants together had approached this Court for regular scales of pay, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge and confirmed in appeal in W.A. No.794/2013 and connected cases, which decision of the Division Bench stood affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.** **[M](ii). In W.A. No.2480/2018 the appellants 1 to 3 joined as Lecturer in Microbiology, respectively on 07.12.1998, 14.07.1997 and 02.03.1995. The 4[th] appellant joined as Lecturer in Biochemistry on 10.01.1996. The appellants 2 and 3 were promoted as Assistant Processor in Microbiology on 13.01.1999. The appellants together filed writ petitions claiming regular scales of pay, which was allowed by the Division Bench.** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::159:: **[M](iii). The appellants in W.A.** **No.2502/2018 joined the Department of Nursing of the SME. The first appellant was appointed as a Lecturer by Ext.P1 dated 21.03.2000 and was promoted as Associate Professor in 2006 (Ext.P3) and her probation was declared in the post of Associate Professor w.e.f. 12.01.2007 by Ext.P4. By Ext.P5 dated 18.11.2011, she was again promoted as Professor along with the appellants 2 and 3. The second appellant was appointed as Associate Professor, directly on 23.06.2005 and later promoted as Professor by the proceedings produced as Ext.P5. The third appellant joined as a Lecturer in the school of SME on 20.08.2003 and like the other appellants were promoted, her probation declared and at the time of termination was working as a Professor in the school of Nursing at SME. W.A. No.2514/2018 is by the very same appellants in W.A. No.2502/2018.** ## _**VI[N].W.A.Nos.9/2019 and 10/2019**_ **[N](i). The appellants in W.A. No.9/2019 joined the Institute of Nursing Education under the** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::160:: **SME. Sri. Babu Cherukara, learned Counsel, appears for the appellants. The first appellant joined as Lecturer on 07.10.2004 (Ext.P1) and her probation was declared on 07.10.2005 (Ext.P3). She was promoted as Assistant Professor in Nursing (Ext.P4) and by Ext.P5 dated 26.12.2013 she was appointed as Associate Professor. The second appellant likewise joined as Lecturer on 12.10.2004 (P1), got her probation declared on 12.10.2005(P3) and was promoted as Assistant Professor as also Associate Professor (P4&5). The third appellant joined as Lecturer on 01.04.2006 (Ext.P2), her probation declared (P3) and she was provisionally promoted as Assistant Professor(P4).** **[N](ii). The appellants 4 to 7 joined as Lecturers respectively on 08.08.2008 (P6), 27.08.2009(P9), 24.10.2009(P12) and 21.08.2009(P9). Three appellants in W.A. No.10/2019 joined as Lecturers respectively on 10.02.2012, 30.05.2011 and 04.03.2011. However there was no declaration of probation nor did they initiate any litigation to declare it. They continued with extensions of their terms but on regular** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::161:: **pay scales. They were continued as such on regular scales of pay, when they were terminated by the University and they had expressed willingness to work in the CPAS.** _**VI[O].W.A. No.2353/2018**_ **[O](i). Sri.Murali Purushothaman, learned Counsel appears for the appellants in W.A. No.2353/2018, who were all Lecturers in the UCTE. All of the appellants applied under a notification produced as Ext.P2 07.07.99 calling for applications to fill up the 24 posts of Lecturers in the UCTE, which posts were sanctioned by Ext.P1 Resolution of the Syndicate. The Posts were stated to be temporary for a period of three years in the notification and there was a specific recital with respect to communal reservation. The memo of appointments also contained the recital that the appointment could be governed by the provisions in the Mahatma Gandhi University Statutes 1997. The appellants were issued with memos similar to that produced at Ext.P3 dated 28.10.1999.** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::162:: **[O](ii). A challenge was raised against the appointment of the appellants by O.P.No.21541/1999. Ext.P5 is the counter affidavit filed by the University in the said original petition, wherein, specific reference is made to paragraph 5. The contention of the petitioner therein that the appointments were made to temporary posts was specifically denied as not correct. The recital in paragraph 5 was to the following effect.** **A. “..... It is submitted that the complaint of the petitioner that appointment were made against only temporary post is also not correct. Regular posts of lecturers carrying scale of pay were created for a period of 3 years. This was done only because the recognition of University College of teacher education conducted by the university was only provisional. It is not correct to say the present appointment is also on contract basis. The candidates selected for appointment pursuant to Ext.P8 is appointed to post which are now created only for a period of 3 years. All the said posts are likely to be made permanent in the event of getting permanent recognition to the university college of teacher** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases **==> picture [37 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** ## **education....”** **[O](iii). The appellants continued as Lecturer in the UCTE ever since the year 1999 without any break. They were also granted UGC scales of pay as per the decision of the Syndicate. The probation of the appellants were declared as per Ext.P8 dated 29.11.2008. Sri.Murali Purushothaman points out that the contention of the University that it did not have the power to establish and run a SFI is wrong. Sections 2(7) 2(30) and 5(xxiii) r/w Section 23(vii) specifically provides for such powers. It is argued that the University cannot abdicate its powers to maintain and manage educational institutions and reliance is placed on Somasekharan Unni v. M.G. University [2015 (4) KLT 410]. Jawaharlal Nehru University v. Dr.Jawalkar [1989 Suppl. (1) SCC 679] is relied on to contend that there can be no transfer effected of an employee unless there is a consent, express or implied. In the present case, there is absolutely no consent.** **[O](iv). The learned Counsel has** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::164:: **painstakingly listed out the variant terms under the University and the CPAS. Under the University, the appellants were continued on a regular basis, without any break in service, on regular scales of pay, that too the scales of pay as recommended by the UGC/AICTE. The CPAS on the other hand, pays only a consolidated amount and the period is restricted to one year on contract. There is no increment, vacation salary or dearness allowance. The appellants were entitled to all these benefits under the University. Even the provident fund subscription, which the appellants had under the University has been stopped. Casual leave is reduced from 20 to 15 days and there is no leave other than casual leave. The qualification is also said to be as per the NCTE norms made applicable from the year 2017 while the appellants were persons, who were appointed to regular posts created by the Syndicate of the University long back in accordance with the norms applicable then. The transfer of their services results in untold prejudice, is the argument.** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::165:: ## _**VI[P].W.A. No.4/2019**_ **Sri.Shyam Krishnan, argues for the sole appellant, who was appointed as Lecturer in Computer Science in STAS on 11.01.2007. The appellant herein is also the first appellant in W.A. No.423/19. Here the appellant challenges the Rules of service of the CPAS,** **while in the other appeal he challenged the termination. Ext.P5 University order dated 16.09.2017 evidences the grant of scale of pay and declaration of probation of the appellants appointment. The learned Counsel would point out that the transfer made of the SFI's to the Societies on grounds of financial constraints cannot be countenanced, since there are sufficient funds available with the University, which was generated from the fees paid by the students of the SFI's.** _**Tamil Nadu v. State of Kerala [2014 (12) SCC 696]**_ **is relied on to contend that there could have been no transfer of the SFI's to the Society without a legislation. Reliance is also placed on** _**Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi [AIR (2006) SC 1806],**_ W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::166:: _**State of Jharkhand v. KamalPrasad [2014 (7) SCC 223] and Narendarkumar Thivari v. State of Jharkhand [2018(8) SCC 238]**_ **to plead for regularisation. We do not think any discussion is necessary on the above cited decisions since the appellants do not claim regularisation; but assert their status of permanent employees under the University by reason of the various aspects of the service, crystallized by binding judgments of this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court.** _**VI[Q].W.A.No.1018/2019**_ **The six appellants herein are Lecturers appointed to the UCTE. Except for the bland statement made in the appeal memorandum and the memorandum of writ petition that the first appellant/petitioner was appointed as early as in 2002 and that the other appellants were also appointed on different dates and have rendered long years of service as Lecturers on contract basis, no details are provided as to their appointment and service in the University. There is absolutely no evidence on affidavit to substantiate** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::167:: **their plea and they merely continued on contract without any declaration of probation or up-gradation in scales of pay or promotions, as in the other cases. The appellants have also not sought to assert their rights by way of a litigation.** _**VI[R].W.A. Nos.160 and 161/2019**_ **Sri. Bechu Kurian Thomas, Senior Counsel appears for the very same appellants in these appeals, who are Associate Professors in the Institute of Nursing Education. The 1[st] appellant was appointed in the year 1998 as Lecturer in Nursing at Ext.P2. The appellant was paid remuneration at the regular scales of pay and her pay was also revised in 2008. Ext.P1 is the notification under which the appellant had applied and Ext.P2 is the approval of her appointment. W.A. No.160/2019 arises from a writ petition, challenging the termination, pursuant to Ext.P7. W.A. No.161/2019 arises from a writ petition challenging Ext.P6 by which the retirement age in the Society was stipulated as 56 years. The appellant claims that she is entitled to** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::168:: **continue as a Faculty of the department of the University till 60 years.** ## _**VII. THE SUPREME COURT DECISION:**_ **VII(i). The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal No's: 2388-2389 of 2019, held the appellants therein to be regular employees of the University, after noticing four segments. The first of the four was the fact that prior to the pay revision in 2001, the faculty in the SFIs were never described as temporary appointments made for a specified period of three years. Then the Hon'ble Supreme Court took note of the order dated 23.03.2001 by which for the first time, the appellants' service were treated as temporary and contractual. The third segment was the Universities stand before the AICTE that the faculty employed in the SFI's, the courses run in which, were approved by the Apex Body, were permanent faculty. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also noticed the budget proposals of the University. The last but not the least was the inconsistent views expressed by two Division Benches of** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::169:: ## **this Court.** **VII(ii). While examining the first segment as to how the faculty was treated prior to 2001, the Hon'ble Supreme Court noticed the creation of posts by the Syndicate without any qualification as temporary or contractual. Notification for appointment and the appointment orders, were issued without any such qualification. The selection was conducted after constitution of a proper Select Committee, as per the Statutes and at each point there was creation of additional posts when new appointments were undertaken. The appointments were not part-time or contractual and there was a specific recital in the appointment order that the appointee would be governed by University Statutes. The faculty hence was found to be appointed permanently through a regular selection process.** **VII(iii). The 1999 Revision of Pay was extended to the non-teaching [technical] staff in the SFI's of the University. When there was a revision of pay to the faculty in the year 2000 as per the recommendation of the AICTE; for the faculty of the** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::170:: **SFI's, it was given effect only from 2001. This was the first time when the faculty appointed long back in the SFI's and continued without any break in service were termed as temporary and contractual. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also noticed that there was nothing on record to show that the STAS was a separate Institution, distinct from the University. Very pertinent is the observation that the communication to the AICTE referred the appointments as permanent faculty employed in the SFI's. Here, we pause to notice that otherwise the courses would have lost the approval of the Apex Body, the AICTE.** **VII(iv). The income and expenditure of the SFI's were included in the University funds in the budget proposals of 2015-2016 and 2016-2017. The steps taken for creation of posts, calling for the applications and individual appointments made, did not indicate any qualification or restriction was the clear finding of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. As to W.A. No.156 of 2019 and the other appeals admitted to be similar (VI.[B]&[C]) the appellants are squarely covered by the** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases **==> picture [37 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** **decision of the Supreme Court.** _**VIII. W.A. No.794 of 2013 and connected cases Judgment dated 07.12.2016**_ **VIII(i). We also have to notice this decision which was affirmed by the Supreme Court, before deciding on the contention raised by the University of a distinction, in the appeals other than those covered by the decision of the Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the Civil Appeals, had referred specifically to this decision of the Division Bench in W.A. No.794 of 2013 as one of the compelling factors to interfere with the decision in W.A. No.442 of 2014 and connected cases. In W.A. No.442 of 2014 the Division Bench had held that the appellants therein, who are the appellants in W.A. No.156 of 2019, cannot be treated as permanent teachers entitled to all benefits. The Division Bench in W.A. No.794 of 2013, a later judgment, held otherwise. Therein some of the appellants agitated the withdrawal of benefits of scale of pay and the direction of the University to execute** **fresh contracts for continuance in service. The** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::172:: **University therein took a similar defense as to there being in existence no posts or permanent cadre in the SFI's. The appointments of the petitioners therein were asserted to be on contract basis for specific periods, with consolidated pay. The University also urged that there could be no declaration of probation nor any monetary benefits paid to the petitioners other than that provided in the agreement executed with them at the time of initial appointment for one year or the specified period. To further buttress the above defense, it was also argued that wherever scales of pay was granted and probation declared, it would be cancelled by the University.** **IX(ii). The Division Bench found that the case of the petitioners were anchored on Exts.P19 & P23 judgments, respectively of this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Ext.P19 was a decision by a learned Single Judge in the case of Dr.Bijamma Thomas, who is the appellant in W.A. No.2354 of 2018, one of the cases in the instant batch. Ext.P19 decision was upheld by the Division Bench and also by the Hon'ble Supreme** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::173:: **Court in Ext.P23 judgment produced in W.A. No.727 of 2011, one of the connected cases. A review filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court also stood rejected by Ext.P24 produced therein.** **IX(iii). The Division Bench in paragraph 20 categorically found that the probation of the appointees were declared, they were granted leave and other service benefits on par with regular appointees and they were also granted regular scales of pay and upgraded to senior scales. The Division Bench deprecated the stand of the University at that distance of time; almost 20 years after the initial appointment,** **as to the SFI's being established outside the provisions of the Act and the Statutes and the appointments made, being not against a specific post created. The Division Bench categorically declared that** **the various facts** _**“show that the University itself has**_ _**considered these teachers, as teachers of the**_ _**University”**_ **[** _**sic-paragraph 20**_ **]. The various decisions relied on by the University as to a regular scale of pay being applicable only to persons appointed to** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::174:: **permanent posts was specifically noticed by the Division Bench in paragraph 21. It was held on the basis of the admitted factual posistion; the University cannot** _**“wash its hands of and resist the claim of the employees, who include teachers who have rendered more than 20 years of service, and are even heading Departments in the Self Financing Institutions established and maintained by the University, in terms of Section 5(xxiii) of the University Act itself” [sicparagraph 21]**_ **.** **IX(iv). Referring to the statutory provisions, it was found that the University is entitled to establish Colleges like the SFI's and that it was also entitled to appoint necessary teaching staff. The contention that no Government approval was obtained was noticed. But even then it was held that the appointments cannot be treated as irregularly made nor the teachers termed as backdoor entrants [para 22].** _**Nihal Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Others [(2013) 14 SCC 65]**_ **was relied on and copiously extracted from, to find so in paragraph 25:** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::175:: _**“25. The principles laid down in this judgment, according to us, fully answer the contentions of the University regarding the contractual nature of appointment, absence of regular cadre and ineligibility for scale of pay. Therefore, the aforesaid contentions of the University are only to be rejected and we do so.”**_ **IX(v). Exts.P19 & P23 decisions, produced therein, were held to be binding on the University insofar as identically situated appellants. The contentions with respect to contractual appointment and ineligibility to pay scales were found to have been already rejected by this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court. As to the cancellation threatened of the pay scales granted to certain persons, it was held that the University cannot** _**“nullify judgments of this Court by subsequent cancellation of orders relied on by this Court and Apex Court and that too, long after the litigation has attained finality. Such a contntion**_ _**itself, to say the least, is unbecoming of an**_ _**instrumentality of the State.” [sic-paragraph 29].**_ **The Division Bench hence specifically rejected all the** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::176:: **contentions now raised by the University in this appeals too.** **IX(vi). The further contention that Exts.P19 & P23 judgments were wrongly decided and suffered from illegalities, was also negatived. The additional contention raised on the basis of financial nonviability being the reason for not creating permanent posts or cadre in the SFI's was also dealt with elaborately. It was specifically found that except for the year 2013-2014 in all the other years substantial excess income has been generated in the SFI's. Apart from this, the ground on financial non-viability itself was held to be irrelevant, insofar as styling persons, who are continued for long years, as** _**ad hoc.**_ **Paragraph 35 can be usefully referred to, which is as follows:** _**“35. Apart from the above, acceptance of the contention of the University that uncertain financial viability entitled it to continue adhocism in the matter of appointment would have serious and dangerous consequences. Employment of workmen as casual and temporaries and to continue them as such for years, with the object of depriving them**_ W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::177:: _**of the status and privileges of permanent workmen has been recognised as a unfair labour practice falling within the item 10 of the Fifth Schedule to the Industrial Disputes Act. If such permanent adhocism is impermissible in the case of the workmen under the Industrial Disputes Act, we see how such a system is permissible for an instrumentality of the State like the University and that too in the employment of its teaching staff. Further approval of such a system would be an incentive to other establishments, including Government establishments, to resort to such permanent adhocism. In any case, even if the institution becomes financially unviable in future and if the staff are rendered surplus or unnecessary, it is always permissible to get rid of the unnecessary man power by retrenchment in accordance with law. Therefore, the uncertain future financial unviability argued by the University not only has no factual basis but also cannot be a justification to continue permanent adhocism in the matter of appointment of teaching staff in the Self Financing Institutions. As held in Nihal Singh [supra], the University cannot continue such a practice consistent with its obligations to function in accordance with the Constitution.”**_ W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::178:: **IX(vii). The tenor and purport of the Division Bench decision goes against the contention of the University that the faculty and non-teaching staff appointed to the SFI's are not permanent teachers appointed by the University. The decision of the Division Bench has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the University cannot re-agitate the cause in these appeals, on similar contentions. The University stands estopped from contending that the engagement made of faculty and others, originally on contract, but continued uninterruptedly for long, with all the trappings of regular employees, are to be treated always as** _**adhoc**_ **appointments. This conflict of decision in a later decision was specifically adverted to by the Supreme Court in the Civil Appeals wherein the earlier decision in W.A 424/14 was reversed. This was also one of the factors which prompted the Supreme Court to reverse the earlier decision.** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases **==> picture [37 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** _**IX. OUR CONCLUSION IN W.A. No.156 of 2019 and W.A. Nos.2402 of 2018, 2394 of 2018 and 120 of 2019 :**_ **X(i). We cannot but observe that in deciding these appeals we have before us binding precedents by way of the decisions of the Honble Supreme Court in C.A. No's;2388-2389 of 2019 and this Court in W.A 794/13. In juxtaposition we also have to notice the action of the University, which gave rise to the present batch of writ petitions. It is argued that the subsequent events now justify a departure from the declaration made by the Supreme Court in the cited decision. It is argued, due to the formation of two independent Universities for carrying on the professional Courses in Engineering and Medicine, the other Universities in Kerala to which both Engineering and Medical Colleges, coming within their jurisdiction were affiliated, had to be de-linked and affiliation obtained from the new Universities statutorily created. This led to formation of a Society by a MoA executed by the first members of the Governing Body as constituted** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::180:: **by that document, which is produced as Ext.P24 in W.A. No.156/19.** **IX(ii). The first Governing Body of the Society consists of (i) the Hon'ble Minister for Education, (ii) (iii) & (iv) Secretaries to Government; of Higher Education Department, Health and Family Welfare Department and Finance Department or their nominees, (v) one representative from the MG University, (vi) (vii) & (viii) three members nominated by the Government from the field of Higher Education, (ix) Director of Medical Education and (x) Director of CPAS appointed by the Government the latter of whom is the ex-officio Member Secretary of the Governing Body. The Society as is seen from the MoA was specifically established for the coordination, better management and administration of all the SFI's run by the MG University.** **IX(iii). Even prior to the constitution of the Society, the Syndicate of the University resolved to accept the proposal of the Academic Council to discontinue the engagement of teaching and other staff** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::181:: **in the SFI's run by the University, which decision is evidenced by Ext.P-21 dated 20.07.2017 produced in W.A. No.156/19. In accordance with the decision of the Syndicate, the services of the appellants were unceremoniously terminated by Memos similar to Ext.P22 (W.A. No.156/19) dated 01.08.2017. The Government is said to have approved the MoA by Ext.P23 (W.A. No.156/19) dated 06.04.2017. Here we pause, to recuperate the submissions of the learned Special G.P in so far as the reason for constitution of the Society, which originally was intended at taking over the SME and then on the suggestion of the ViceChancellor, of the STAS & UCTE.** **IX(iv). The appellants in W.A. No.156/19 challenged Exts.P21 to P23, produced in the writ petition and sought for further direction to either depute them as University teachers to the newly formed Society or retain their status as regular University teachers with all consequential service benefits in the newly formed Society as they would be entitled to, if they had continued in the University. We have to notice** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::182:: **that the termination of their services by the University was at a time when Ext.P18 (W.A. No.156/19) judgment in W.A No.442/2014 controlled the field. The declaration by a learned Single Judge of this Court that the petitioners are regularly appointed permanent teachers entitled to all benefits stood reversed by the Division Bench, despite the finding in the very same appeal that the writ petitioners were entitled to the benefit of AICTE scales of pay with effect from 01.01.1996 instead of 01.01.2001. The decision of the learned Single Judge which led to W.A. No.424 of 2014, was rendered in 2014, before the constitution of the two separate Universities for professional courses. The action taken by the University was on the de-linking of professional courses from the existing University which could have been justified in view of the judgment of the Division Bench. But there was yet another Bench decision of this Court, which held to the contrary. The writ petitions were filed when there was a conflict between two Benches but not noticed. The learned Single Judge, in the impugned judgment, when rejecting the** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases **==> picture [37 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** **writ petitions placed reliance on the findings in the decision in W.A 424/14. As of now the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held otherwise and reversed the decision in W.A 424/14, specifically noticing the conflicting decision in 794/13, which was approved earlier by the Apex Court.** **IX(v). The adjudication, at least in the case of the appellants in the connected writ appeals, would be as to whether the declaration of regular appointment to substantive posts as made by the learned Single Judge which stands now upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, could be nullified by the subsequent events. We are of the opinion that the subsequent event, being the de-linking of the professional courses, the formation of two separate Universities and the decision of the M.G. University to lease out their SFI's to a Society formed at the aegis of the Government would not negative the declaration made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court on an independent consideration of the various factual aspects arising in the case, restored the decision of the learned Single** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::184:: **Judge in the Civil Appeals. The petitioners who have been declared to be teachers appointed to substantive posts would have to be accommodated in the University itself in their affiliated Colleges or necessary arrangement would have to be made by the University to ensure their continuance under the Society in the SFI's. We do not think that the Society can distance itself from the University especially since the Governing Body constituted, by majority, is the Minister and the officers of the State. The other two members are nominated by the Government and one by the University. There cannot be a contention taken that the Society formed is distinct from the Government.** **IX(vi). The Government definitely has a say in the matter and could ensure the continuance of the appellants with the Society or the University itself, could take steps to see that the appellants are given fruitful employment with protection of pay in the scales of pay they were drawing at the time of transfer of SFI's. We are told that many of the appellants have not exercised any option to be continued in the Society** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::185:: **and they are standing outside, without any employment. Necessarily the University will have to compensate the wages due to them for the time when they were kept out of employment, especially noticing the interim orders in these appeals, which restrained the University from altering the terms of employment of the appellants. We would not say as to how the services of the petitioners should be utilized, since it is for the University or the State to consider the fruitful utilization of their services. In any event, the appellants are entitled to all pay and allowances from the University, which mainly survives on grants-in-aid from the Government but has also generated own funds through the SFI's. The termination of the appellants abruptly styling themselves to be temporary employees goes against the precedents noticed and is illegal.** **IX(vii). University Funds as defined under Section 46 of the M.G. University Act, includes all revenues of the University. The learned Standing Counsel has a contention that the fixed deposits from the revenue of the SFI's have been transferred to the** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::186:: **University Funds and has hence lost its character. We are unable to accept the contention, since the character of the funds remain unchanged, wherever they are parked and the University from its accounts could decipher the amounts generated from the students of the SFI's now kept in the common kitty. If regularly appointed employees, held to be permanent, are kept out of employment on the pretext of their contracts having been terminated, the termination itself will be illegal and the employees entitled to all benefits when they were illegally kept out of employment. The University could have retrenched the permanent employees, but only by known, legally acceptable modes and not by an unceremonious termination as is decipherable from the impugned orders. Even the Government in its affidavit only asserts the option of the University to retrench regular employees in accordance with law. The termination, though possible, was by reason of the decision in W.A 424/13, which stands reversed. The Supreme Court decision, if we may use colloquial expressions, strikes the University as a “bolt from the** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::187:: **blue” and provides succor to the appellants as “manna from heaven”. Even otherwise termination was possible on the abolition of either the posts or the institution itself, but not in the manner it was carried out nor in the manner suggested by the learned Single Judge of one months pay and gratuity alone. WE would deal with that in the directions we intend to make on the basis of our findings. We will further elaborate on these issues in our conclusions in the other appeals.** **IX(viii). In this context, we have to notice the specific contention raised by the learned Standing Counsel for the Society that they cannot employ persons who are not qualified as per the AICTE norms which we have to accept, since otherwise they may loose approval from the Apex Body, for the courses, which they are conducting with affiliation from the respective Universities. But however, that cannot be an impediment insofar as the continued employment of the appellants with the University. The allegedly unqualified hands were also taken to employment after a** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::188:: **due selection process and continued for long. They too have rights and if terminated on grounds of abolition of post or lack of qualification, it has to be in accordance with law. We cannot also ignore the fact that in making contractual appointments the Society puts to peril the approval from the apex councils, which is only possible on condition of creation of regular posts. We have to now deal with the other appeals.** _**X. OUR CONCLUSION IN THE OTHER APPEALS:**_ **X(i). From the narration of facts in the individual appeals, we discern a common thread, which viewed in the context of the findings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.2380 to 2389 of 2019 and the decision of the Division Bench in W.A. No.794/13 and connected cases, leads us to an irresistible conclusion as to the status of the employment of the appellants with the University. True, the appointments initially were contractual and was for a specified period. But admittedly it stood extended uninterruptedly; in many cases more than two decades,** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::189:: **in some, a decade and a half, give or take a few years, with approval from the Syndicate of the University. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that the SFI's are a part of the University itself. The University hence, can no longer say that the SFI's were not a part of the University, though it could always contend that the SFI's were not a Department of the University.** **X(ii). Even then, a feeble attempt was made to contend that the establishment of the SFI was itself beyond the powers of the University. It is too late in the day to take up such a contention and though such establishment is realised to be a misadventure, at least financially, the University is well within its powers in establishing such Institutions. The M.G. University Act defines College in Section 2(vii), as an Institution maintained by or affiliated to the University. Section 5(xxiii) confers power on the University to establish, maintain and manage colleges, institutions of research and higher studies. The SFI's are an Institution maintained by and affiliated to the** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::190:: **University. The establishment was also in accordance with the decision of the Syndicate and the creation of posts were again by the Syndicate in accordance with the Statutes. We were in fact taken to Section 23, which delineates the powers of the Syndicate. Section 23(ix) and(xxvi) confers power on the Syndicate to create administrative, ministerial and other necessary posts as also institute Professorships, Readerships and such other teaching or research posts. The proviso was specifically emphasised, which is available in both the aforesaid definition clauses, which require a prior approval from the Government, but only if it involves expenditure in excess of the budgetary provision. This is so since the University mainly survives on the grants-in-aid of the State. However, the SFI's are said to have been established and run on the University's own funds generated from the fees paid by the students. Hence there is no requirement for a prior approval from the Government in creating the posts and instituting the teaching posts. We stand fortified in our view, by** _**Somasekharan Unni (supra)**_ **a decision of a Division** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::191:: **Bench of this Court.** **X(iii). We have seen that the posts were created by the Syndicate in exercise of the powers vested with it and the University had specifically informed the apex bodies; the AICTE, NCTE, Pharmacy Council of India etc. as to creation of posts in which regular appointments have been made. We had specifically referred to the Vice Chancellor's letter in paragraph VI(H)(ii), where the Pharmacy Council was informed of such creation of posts and the decision of the University to make regular appointments to the said posts. We also referred to the communication of the Registrar again addressed to the Pharmacy Council of India that regular appointments have been made to the posts of Principals, Lecturers etc. with AICTE pay scales in paragraph VI[H](iii). Relevant is the Handbook of the AICTE referred to in paragraph VI[G] (iv) which speaks of 80% appointments to be permanent and the 20% on adjunct basis and sourced from the industry. Adjunct by dictionary meaning is additional; ie: guest lecturers of expertise in the subject and not** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::192:: _**adhoc**_ **.** **X(iv). Pertinent also is the Counter Affidavit filed by the University in a Original Petition filed against the appointment of the appellants in W.A. No.2353/18, which we extracted in paragraph VI[O](ii) above. The University on affidavit submitted before this Court that the said appointments were regularly made to permanent posts. In the context of the overwhelming evidence on this aspect, we cannot, at all, countenance the contention of the University that what was intended was that the faculty posts would be permanent as long as the SFI's exist. A very adventurous argument with no sound backing in law. Definitely if the SFI's are closed down, the courses would not be continued and the faculty positions would also stand abolished. However, that would not be a reason to find the status of the faculty to be temporary or contractual and not permanent. We reiterate at the risk of repetition that even such permanent posts could be abolished, but only in accordance with law; with the incumbents in the** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::193:: **permanent posts being compensated suitably; which we will labour on a little later.** **X(v). Here the abolition is illegal even as per the Statutes and the termination arbitrary. The appointments made of the appellants were with the approval of the University and many of them were initially appointed in regular scales of pay. The appointment orders specifically provided that the service will be regulated by the Act, Statutes and Ordinances of the University. Those who were appointed on contract, on a consolidated pay, had approached this Court and obtained regular scales of pay by virtue of various decisions of this Court affirmed in appeal and in some cases confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court too. These decisions have acquired finality. The appellants, who were appointed to such posts created by the Syndicate in regular scales of pay, were also granted higher scales of pay on completion of the requisite service, as per the norms of the AICTE/UGC. Those who were denied such scales recommended by AICTE/UGC, were again before this Court and obtained** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::194:: **orders affirming their right to get such scales of pay as recommended by the AICTE/UGC. The appointments, though styled as contractual, were said to be governed by the Act and Statutes of the University. The appellants were paid increments and were also granted additional increments on higher scales of pay on acquisition of higher qualification. One of the appellants as a Director of the School of Pharmacy was deputed to the AICTE and two of the appellants, as we notice from the facts, were granted leave under the Faculty Improvement Programme. On acquisition of their higher qualification, they were taken back with better benefits as applicable under the norms of the AICTE/UGC. Many were promoted and some appointed as Principals and Head Of the Departments.** **X(vi). All the appellants, except a few, after appointment, were continued on probation and their probation was declared by orders of the University. Many were promoted from the post of Lecturer to that of Assistant Professors and Associate Professors and their probation in the promoted posts** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::195:: **were also declared by orders of the University. Some of the appellants, on their initial appointment, had left reputed Institutions, in which they were lucratively employed. On taking up the appointment in the SFI's of the University, their pay drawn in such Institutions were protected. The appellants were also selected as Principals, which though styled by the University as a fresh appointment again on contract, this Court had found such appointees to be entitled to protection of their pay received in the post they occupied from which they were selected to the post of Principal. They were also granted regular scales of pay in the post of Principal. The uninterrupted continuance in posts created by the Syndicate, wherein the probation of the incumbents were declared and promotions granted and remuneration paid in regular scales of pay, which were upgraded with time and acquisition of higher qualifications, were the factors specifically highlighted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to find the appointments to be permanent. This common thread, we notice in the facts arising in the appeals, except a** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::196:: **few, specifically four, leading us to the irresistible conclusion that the status of employment of the appellants, in the University, with the SFI's, was permanent.** **X(vii). We also specifically refer to paragraphs 21,25, 29 and 35 of the judgment of the Division Bench in W.A. No.794/13 and connected cases, which we extracted herein above in paragraph IX, deprecating the contention of the University that the appellants were continued for long years on contract in the University. The Division Bench decision is binding** _**-**_ **on the University being** _**inter partes,**_ **which also stood confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. We find no way to digress from the binding precedent of the Division Bench. We hold the appellants, herein after specified, to have been permanently employed with the University.** **X(viii). Now, the question arise as to whether the de-linking of the SFI's from the University and handing over of the same to the Society was proper or not. We do not find any sustenance for the contention that the Technological University Act and** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::197:: **the Health Sciences Act created an impediment in running the SFI's. The Health Sciences Act by Section 50 did provide a prohibition insofar as, mandating a transfer of affiliation of medical and allied courses affiliated to any other University in the State, to the new University of Health Sciences. However, that does not prohibit the M.G. University from continuing with the SFI's, with affiliation from the Health Sciences University. The Technological University Act definitely did not provide any such prohibition, though there was a deemed transfer of affiliations as per Section 60. The proviso to Section 60 saved such affiliation of constituent Colleges affiliated to other Universities in the State. There is hence no merit in the submission of the University that the de-linking of the SFI's was a statutory requirement.** **X(ix). Be that as it may, we cannot ignore the submission of the University that they realised the establishment of SFI's to be a financial** **misadventure, especially looking at the declining admissions over the years. We cannot sit in appeal over** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::198:: **the wisdom of the University, in so de-linking the SFIs. The Society, as we earlier observed, though attempts to distance itself from both the State and the University, we do not agree with that attempt. The Governing Body of the Society, is constituted of members from the Government itself in majority. The Society has also been formed on the aegis of the State and the MoA by Clause (26) indicates that on its dissolution, the assets and rights vested with the Society would revert and vest with the M.G. University. Clause (11) of the MoA is also relevant insofar as providing for contractual appointment of teachers and non-teaching staff except those deployed by the University. Clause (22) also mandates for submission of a report of the working of the Academy, with an Audited statement of accounts, by the Governing Body to the Government at the close of every financial year. Hence the Society is controlled by the State and also by the University, which has one of its representatives in the Governing Body.** **X(x). The decisions relied on by the Society** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::199:: **are all to assert their independent existence, not coming within the definition of State under Article 12.** **We need only refer to** _**Zee Telefilms Ltd.,**_ **where reliance was placed on** _**Ajay Hasia Vs. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi (1981) 1 SCC 722.**_ **The test laid down in** _**Ajai Hasia**_ **was ;** _**“The question in each case would bewhether in the light of the cumulative facts as established, the body is financially, functionally and administratively dominated by or under the control of the Government. Such control must be particular to the body in question and must be pervasive. If this is found then the body is a State within Article 12. On the other hand, when the control is merely regulatory, whether under statute or otherwise, it would not serve to make the body a State.”**_ **(sic-para 40).** **X(xi). We have already referred to the constitution of the Governing body, of a Minister, as Chairman and three Secretaries to the Government, a Syndicate Member of the University, the Director of Medical Education and three members from the field of Higher Education nominated by the Government and the** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::200:: **Director of the Society appointed by the Government. The Society is formed exclusively to manage and administer the SFI's hitherto run by the MG University, as per the preamble to the MoA and intends to utilize the entire assets of the University, both movable and immovable earlier used by the SFI's. Any disputes or differences between the Society and the University would be referred to the Government and both would subject themselves to the orders issued by the Government, which would be final and binding on both (clause 10). The Rules and Regulations framed for the Society mandates an annual report to the Government together with the Audited Statement of Accounts. The dissolution clause also, in that event, vests the entire properties and assets on the University. The SFI also sources its finance from the fees paid by the students, which are amounts collected from the public, giving it the essential character of public funds and the resultant obligation to hold it in trust and expend accordingly. The control of the Government is all pervasive and it is not a mere regulatory control of a** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::201:: **society. In fact CPAS does not even have the independent character of the University, who in academic matters is not subservient to the Government, though financially dependent. WE have no hesitation to find the CPAS to be an instrumentality of the State.** **X(xii). The University has the power to abolish posts as per Chapter 2 Statute 2 of the M.G.U. Statutes, but only with six months notice in the case of a permanent incumbent. The termination has not been done in accordance with the Statutes which makes it illegal. We now deal with that contention of the State and the University, on the exercise of powers for abolition of posts, with reference to the decisions cited by the University.** _**M. Ramanatha Pillai(supra),**_ **found that any and every termination of service cannot amount to dismissal or removal. Abolition of post was held to be another exception, along with superannuation and compulsory retirement, saved from the applicability of Article 311(2). It was held that a post, when abolished, in good faith, it is a matter of policy and cannot be termed as a dismissal or removal, even if it** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::202:: **results in the termination of the employee.** _**Des Raj Sangar,**_ **followed the above dictum but again emphasised the requirement that the decision to abolish be one taken in good faith.** _**Navneet Verma**_ **, reversed the decision of the High Court that the abolition of post and consequent termination of the respondent was a colourable exercise of power. The Supreme Court came to the opposite conclusion based on relevant material and held that the entire exercise was taken in good faith. Suffice it to observe that the good faith emphasised, is lacking in the present case. We need not refer to the other decisions which reiterated the dictum. We cannot but pertinently point out that in every cited case the question was on the exercise of sovereign powers of the State in abolition of a post. Here the abolition and the termination was done by the University purportedly in exercise of its powers under the Statutes; but not in accordance with that.** **X(xiii). As we already saw, many of the appellants after their initial appointment had been fighting their cause against the employer, before this** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::203:: **Court and they had succeeded in obtaining orders granting them regular scales of pay, upgradation and scales as recommended by the AICTE/UGC, which are paid to permanent employees. These decisions have become final. In the year 2015, in two appeals, W.A. Nos.442/14 and 339/15, a Division Bench of this Court found the appellants to be entitled to pay revisions with effect from the date of order granting revision, but, set aside the declaration of the learned Single Judge that they had status of permanent employees. Later in another batch, which agitated the withdrawal of the benefits of scale of pay to many of the appellants and the direction of the University to execute fresh contracts for continuance in service was heard. The University as we noticed, raised similar contentions of contractual appointment to contest the permanence claimed by the employees, all of which were declined by another Division Bench. The said decision came in 2016, in W.A 794/13 and connected cases and was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court first, by dismissal of an SLP.** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::204:: **X(xiv). The appeal from the earlier decision, W.A 442/14 was then pending in the Supreme Court. Obviously taking cue from that earlier decision, and emboldened by it, the employees were terminated un-cerimoniously on grounds of de-linking of the institutes itself and the consequential abolition of posts; an attempt to defeat the directions in the later decision in W.A. No.794/13. However the institutes were continued under a newly formed Society and willingness called for from the terminated employees, to be continued on contract. Hence what was prevented by the decision in W.A. No.794/13 and connected cases was sought to be again effectively implemented. Now the earlier decision in W.A. No.442/14 has been reversed and despite the strenuous effort of the State, University and the Society we find the termination to be not in good faith. We reiterate, the abolition as per the statutes, was not carried out and it was illegal and so are the terminations on that ground.** **X(xv). We also noticed from the Statutes that the power to abolish, as sanctioned therein can** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::205:: **only be with six months notice to a permanent incumbent; which has not been done. We also make a caveat in so far as the abolition, even if held to be proper, requiring a consideration of the legal entitlement of the terminated employees; which the University failed to address. The abolition of posts lack good faith and is a measure adopted to unsettle the employees who had obtained favourable orders of this Court, after fighting a long legal battle, the earliest of which was in the commencement of this century. The various orders of this Court have acquired finality, by sheer passage of time and also by affirmation of the Apex Court, in appeals filed by the University. As to the decisions placed on record, on the rights of an** _**adhoc**_ **employee, we are of the opinion it is too late in the day for the University to urge such a contention, again in the teeth of the decisions** _**inter-parties.**_ **X(xvi). The contention also is that in delinking the SFI's, the posts get abolished. But the fact remains that the SFI's are continued in CPAS,** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::206:: **allegedly with abandonment of posts. The University even as per the MoA of CPAS has the authority to deploy employees to CPAs, when the contractual conditions spoken of in Clause (11) of the MoA will not apply. Permanent employees who held such posts cannot be abruptly terminated when the institutes they were working in were merely transferred to another entity and the claim of abolition of posts is a mere ruse to terminate the employees. There should have been an attempt to provide alternate employment in the service of the CPAS, or the University or the employees retrenched in accordance with law. The power to abolish with six months notice does not absolve the employer from following the accepted principles in retrenching employees.** **X(xvii). In this context** _**Kalabharathi Advertising**_ **which spoke on the concept of legal malice is apposite. We refer to two paragraphs from the said decision, which are as follows:** **“** _**25. The State is under obligation to act fairly without ill will or malice— in fact**_ W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::207:: _**or in law. “Legal malice” or “malice in law” means something done without lawful excuse. It is an act done wrongfully and wilfully without reasonable or probable cause, and not necessarily an act done from ill feeling and spite. It is a deliberate act in disregard to the rights of others. Where malice is attributed to the State, it can never be a case of personal ill will or spite on the part of the State. It is an act which is taken with an oblique or indirect object. It means exercise of statutory power for “purposes foreign to those for which it is in law intended”. It means conscious violation of the law to the prejudice of another, a depraved inclination on the part of the authority to disregard the rights of others, which intent is manifested by its injurious acts. (Vide ADM, Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla[[(1976) 1] SCC 496]**_ ~~_**,**_~~ _**S.R. Venkataraman v. Union of India [(1979) 2 SCC 491], State of A.P. v. Goverdhanlal Pitti[[(2003) 4 SCC 439], [(1966] SC 1441)]**_ ~~_**,**_~~ _**BPL Ltd. v. S.P. Gururaja[[(2003) 8] SCC 567] and W.B. SEB v. Dilip Kumar Ray [(2007) 14 SCC 568].**_ _**26. Passing an order for an unauthorised purpose constitutes malice in law. (Vide**_ W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::208:: _**Punjab SEB Ltd. v. Zora Singh[[(2005) 6 SCC] 776] and Union of India v. V. Ramakrishnan [(2005) 8 SCC 394]**_ ~~_**.**_~~ _**”**_ **The action of the University, in cohorts with the Government, to form a Society and terminate the employees in the SFI's, on grounds of abolition of posts, while the institutions are carried on under the newly formed Society smacks of legal malice. It is for an oblique purpose and indirect object; which is to set at naught the** _**inter-parties**_ **judgments of this Court and the Supreme Court in the various litigations, even prior to W.A 442/14. It is a direct affront to rule of law and least expected of an instrumentality of the State. The decision of this Court in W.A 794/13 and connected cases, affirmed by the Supreme Court, is attempted to be circumvented by this action.** **X(xviii). We however do not fault the formation of the Society or the transfer of the institutions and the courses, which is a policy decision. But the permanent employees of the University** **are to be deployed to the Society as per the** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::209:: **requirements, on the very same terms and the excess employees retrenched in accordance with law. There can also be no transfer of employment, unless with the consent of employees, as has been declared in** _**Jawaharal Nehru University (supra).**_ **The measure of transfer though found to be actuated by legal malice; this Court would not interfere with the formation of the Society, but to obliterate the malice, it would be appropriate to direct the University to deploy employees, with their consent, to the CPAS, in accordance with the present requirement, but on the same terms and conditions they had with the University. Those whose services are not required will be terminated by way of retrenchment, on terms we will presently put forth and those who do not consent, on terms of payment of gratuity and six months notice pay, as provided in the Statutes.** **X(xix). We again notice the binding precedent in W.A. No.794/13, which held the practice of** **continuing persons for long years as temporary employees to be against the basic principles of service** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::210:: **law, for which parallels were drawn from the Industrial Disputes Act. The ID Act embodies principles of the most ideal employer-employee relationship; reducing the areas of conflict, by enabling ironing-out the creases developed on employee unrest or grievances; to be settled by conciliation, providing alternate adjudicatory process, prescribing code of conduct to both employees and employers, providing for conditions of service by mutual agreement etc. The ID Act and the provisions therein are an illustrative piece of legislation as to how an employee and employer can be a model in their respective spheres of activity. It provides a procedure for retrenchment on every situation other than that delineated in Section 2(oo) and we would only draw a parallel in so far as the present retrenchment is concerned.** **X(xx). As held by the Division Bench in W.A. No.794/13, it does not become an University, an academic body and an instrumentality of the State to continue** _**adhocism**_ **with respect to employment of faculty. The appellants are all highly qualified; on** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::211:: **appointment, invested with the task of moulding the future professionals who have to take the nation forward. What we said about the University equally applies to the Society and we intend to send a copy of this judgment to the AICTE, NCTE, Pharmacy Council of India, Nursing Council of India and UGC to verify the terms of employment in the professional colleges and obtain affidavits in tandem with their respective terms and conditions before the approval to the courses are continued in the next academic years. The Welfare State and its instrumentalities have to lead by example and we would have expected them to be an enlightened employer conscious of and caring for, the rights of their employees too. We would have expected the State to propose measures to implement the decision of the Supreme Court;** _**de hors**_ **the terminations effected on the strength of a decision of this Court, which stands reversed by the Apex Court. We would also have expected the University and the Society, both evidently State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India to have positively responded to the declaration made by the** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::212:: **Supreme Court, having full force under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. The arguments put forth in the case by the State, the University and the Society thrashed our expectations, miserably; as they did the hopes of the appellants who spend precious years of their life in service of the University. We were in fact, taken aback by the manner in which the University and Society joined issue on who is responsible for the employees, left in the lurch of an abrupt termination; which had more the trappings of a drama than of a Court proceeding.** **X(xxi). The University, as we noticed, had abruptly terminated the employees from the SFI's. The alternate was an employment with the Society on different terms and consolidated pay, far lesser to the earlier pay drawn. The University, the State and the Society vehemently asserted the offer of the Society to take the terminated employees, to their fold on conditions, as a mitigating measure to the terminated employees. We cannot but observe that there is absolutely no option available to the employees and it** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::213:: **was a mere Hobson's choice. The University or the State has not attempted to abolish the posts in accordance with law, keeping in mind the vested rights and entitlements of the permanent employees of the SFI's in the event of termination. We find the actions of the official respondents in abruptly terminating the faculty who were working with the University for long, to be arbitrary, illegal and actuated by legal malice. This arbitrary action puts the University in peril insofar as the status of the employees requiring to be restored, during the pendency of the writ petition and the writ appeal and till a proper retrenchment is effected or an employment is offered on same terms.** **X(xxii). We notice that when the writ petitions were pending, as also when the appeals were pending, there were interim orders issued by this Court not to change the conditions of service of the appellants. The University flouted such orders and kept many out of employment. The offer of the Society is no alternative going by the reduced terms stipulated by the Society. As to persons who have offered their willingness, we** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::214:: **find it, to have been offered under duress due to the pressure of imminent threat of termination and impending unemployment. We do not think that the willingness offered was on consent or on free will and we hold so. If any of the appellants, whom we find entitled to regular and permanent status, have offered willingness and they had not obtained interim orders of this Court in appeal, even then, their willingness is deemed to be under protest, subject to the result of the appeals. As to those who obtained such orders, definitely it will be subject to the final decision.** **X(xxiii)** _**.**_ **We cannot ignore the contention of** **the CPAS that many are not qualified to be continued.** _**Santhosh Yadav(supra)**_ **was appointed as a Hindi teacher in 1980, initially for a period of six months and continued with small gaps here and there, till 1990, when she was terminated at one stroke, while those others appointed along with her were regularised. The termination was on account of the diploma possessed by her, from the State Board of U.P, being not recognised** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::215:: **by the State of Haryana. The Court found her initial appointment to be after a proper selection procedure wherein she was found entitled for appointment based on her diploma. The Directorate of Education issued a circular in 1981, after the appellant's recruitment that persons with diplomas from other States should not be henceforth recruited and terminated the appellant again after 9 years. The termination was set aside and the appellant restored to service with all benefits. However** _**Dr.M.S.Mudhol(supra)**_ **was a case in which quo warranto was sought against a person admittedly not qualified to be selected to a post. The Court found the allegation to be true but refused to disturb the incumbent since he had been wrongly appointed on the disclosure of his qualifications and he had continued for nine years, The dictum has no application here.** **X(xxiv)** _**.**_ **Here the refusal to re-employ all the teachers was on grounds of abolition of courses for want of students and some not having the required qualification as per the requirement of AICTE/UGC. Admittedly all these persons were appointed as per a** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::216:: **duly constituted Selection Committee as provided in the Statutes and had the required qualifications at the time of their selection. If the requirement changed in the course of their service, they should have been informed of it and required to acquire the qualification within a time frame, failing which they could be terminated but only in accordance with law. It is also pertinent that these persons were continued in the SFI's carrying on courses with approval from the apex bodies. The Society, by take over has continued the courses on continued affiliation. We fail to understand the logic in so waving the sword of disqualification against a few merely because another entity has taken over the management and administration of the Institutions. It is not relevant as to who is in management of the institutions, as long as the courses are continued without any break. We here also notice the contention of the CPAS that many unviable courses have been stopped and the posts would stand abolished. Of course lack of qualification and abolition of posts is a valid ground but even then termination has to be** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::217:: **in accordance with law, to which we will advert to in the relief portion.** **X(xxv). We however fail to see the common thread we noticed in the other cases, in W.A. Nos.10 of 2019, 663 of 2019, 1018 of 2019 and in the case of appellants 4 to 7 in W.A. No.9 of 2019. We hence are constrained to dismiss W.A. Nos.10, 663 & 1018 of 2019 as also the claims of appellants 4 to 7 in W.A. No.9 of 2019.** **XI.Whether the appellants are teachers of the Department of the University.** **XI(i). From the MGU Act, we already noticed that a SFI would come within the definition of a College maintained and affiliated to the University. However, a Department of the University is specifically defined under Section 2(8) of the Act, which speaks of designation as such by the Ordinances or Regulations with respect to a subject or group of subjects. We have also noticed Statute 2 of Chapter 42 which enumerates the various Departments in the University, which does not include a SFI. Hence the SFI cannot be said to be a** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases **==> picture [37 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** **Department of the University, merely because such an Institution was carried on by the University under its management.** **XI(ii). The “Teachers of the University” as defined by the MGU Act at sub-section (30) of Section 2 is any person employed as a teacher in any institution maintained by the University; which the SFI is. The MGU Statutes by Part B of Chapter 44 provides for “Conditions of Service of Teachers in Private Colleges”. The delineated procedure also indicate separate procedure for selection to un-aided colleges(sub-clause (1) & (2) of Statute 3) and aided colleges(sub-clause (3) of Statute 3). The Department faculty is paid by the University from the grants-inaid for which budgetary provision is made by the State. A SFI, maintained by the University, would only have the status of an unaided College affiliated to the University. Statute 42 of Part B of Chapter 45 also provides for application of the Kerala Service Rules and the date of superannuation as provided by the State. As argued by the appellants themselves their** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::219:: **services are regulated by the Act, Statutes and Ordinances of the University. The appellants are not Teachers of the Department of the University and are not entitled to continue till the age of 60 years; which is the age of superannuation for such teachers, as recommended by the UGC and accepted by the State.** **XI(iii). In allowing the writ appeals we hence, make a reservation insofar as the contention raised by the appellants that there is a declaration in the judgment by the learned Single Judge from which arose the Civil Appeals, before the Supreme Court, that “the petitioners are regularly appointed permanent teachers of the University appointed against substantive posts created by the University.” The claim is that they should be considered as University teachers akin to the faculty attached to the various Departments of the University itself. We do not think there is any warrant to assume so especially by reason of the declaration being qualified by the appointment made to substantive posts created in the SFI's by the University. The status of such employees would not be** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::220:: **akin to those of faculty employed directly in the Department of the Universities and shall be similar to those in unaided affiliated Colleges. The said contention in the appeals stand rejected.** **XII. THE RESULT:** **XII(i). We allow all the Writ Appeals except W.A. Nos.10, 663 & 1018 of 2019 and the claims of appellants 4 to 7 in W.A. No.9 of 2019, setting aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge and finding the terminations illegal.** **XII(ii). W.A. Nos.10, 663 & 1018 of 2019 and the claims of appellants 4 to 7 in W.A. No.9 of 2019 shall stand rejected and the following reliefs and directions shall not apply to them.** **XII(iii). The resolution of the Syndicate produced at Ext.P21 (W.A. No.156/2019) and the consequent termination of the appellants by orders similar to Ext.P22 (W.A. No.156/2019), in the appeals allowed, would stand set aside.** **XII(iv). We declare the appellants to be permanent employees of the University, having the** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::221:: **status of Teachers of the Self Financing Institution, which has the status of an unaided affiliated College, managed by the University.** **XII(v). The termination of the appellants having been found illegal they would be restored to the service of the University and deemed to have been continued in the service of the University uninterruptedly with all benefits** _**dehors**_ **the orders of termination, which are set aside.** **XII(vi). We would not interfere with Ext.P23 (W.A. No.156/2019) since we do not find any infirmity in the constitution of the Society which was for the purpose of better administration and management of the SFI's. The formation of the Society and the transfer of SFI's by the University, are decisions which do not fall for interference by way of judicial review and we decline such prayers.** **XII(vii). The formation of the Society and the transfer of the SFI's cannot affect the service of the appellants who are declared to be permanent employees of the University by the Supreme Court and this Court.** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::222:: **They are to be either deployed to the Society, or employed in the University or retrenched in accordance with law.** **XII(viii). The appellants who are now engaged by the CPAS, will be deemed to be deployed by the University on identical terms and conditions they had with the University. Their pay and allowances will stand protected. The liability to the same shall be either on the Society or the University, as decided by the State; which decision is final as per the MoA and shall be binding on both.** **XII(ix). The appellants shall be paid their entire back wages due within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and shall be continued to be paid in accordance with the regular scales of pay they enjoyed earlier, with increments granted on the due dates starting from the 10th of this month, till and if they are retrenched.** **XII(x). Where by reason of lack of qualification or by abolition of a course or otherwise, a teacher is terminated or a post abolished by the Society then the** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::223:: **appellants who are thus terminated, shall be retrenched with six months notice, as provided in Statute 2 of Chapter III of the MG University Statute, 1997 or pay in lieu of notice and paid one months salary as on the date of termination, for every completed year of service, which includes the gratuity payable under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 as also retrenchment compensation akin to Section 25 F of the ID Act.** **XII (xi). The liability to retrenchment compensation and for salary to those appellants restored to the service shall be that of the University.** **XII(xii). The Registry shall send a copy of this judgment to the AICTE, NCTE, UGC, Nursing Council of India and Pharmacy Council of India and they shall carry out the directions in paragraph X(xx), herein above, despite the fact that they are not parties to the above Writ Appeals.** **We dispose of the writ appeals with the above directions except W.A. Nos.10, 663 & 1018 of 2019, which we reject. W.A. No.9 of 2019 is partly allowed** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::224:: **rejecting the claims of appellants 4 to 7. The costs** **shall be borne by the respective parties.** **Sd/K. Vinod Chandran, Judge.** **Sd/V.G Arun, Judge.** **jma/sp** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::225:: ## **APPENDIX OF WA 2394/2018** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** ## **ANNEXURE I** **TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 7.8.2017 IN WPC.NO.26281/2017.** **ANNEXURE II** **TRUE COPY OF THE EXTENSION OF APPROVAL DATED 10.4.2018.** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::226:: ## **APPENDIX OF WA 120/2019** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE I TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 7.8.2017 IN WPC.NO.26281/2017. ANNEXURE II TRUE COPY OF THE EXTENSION OF APPROVAL DATED 10.4.2018.** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::227:: ## **APPENDIX OF WA 364/2019** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL CERTIFICATE NO.25 DATED 04.01.2019 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY AWARDING PH.D** **ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE AUDIT REPORT DATED 5.2.2016 OF M.G. UNIVERSITY.** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::228:: ## **APPENDIX OF WA 2350/2018** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE I** **COPY OF THE R.P.NO.1006 OF 2018 FILED BY THE APPELLANTS BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT.** **ANNEXURE II** **COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 28/11/2018 IN R.P.NO.1006 OF 2018 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::229:: ## **APPENDIX OF WA 2351/2018** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** ## **ANNEXURE AI** **TRUE COPY OF THE AUDIT REPORT DATED 5.2.2016 OF M.G. UNIVERSITY.** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::230:: ## **APPENDIX OF WA 2353/2018** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE - A THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.29/CPAS/EST/STAFF/2017 DATED 20-08-2018 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT** **ANNEXURE - B THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30-08-2018 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P. (C)NO.22406/2017** **ANNEXURE - C THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO. 29/CPAS/EST/STAFF/2017 DATED 24-01-2019 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT** **ANNEXURE - D THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.29/CPAS/EST/STAFF/2017 (C) DATED 07-012009 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT** **ANNEXURE - E THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER NO.29/EST/STAFF/2017 DATED 12-02-2019 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT** **ANNEXURE - F THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.20/CPAS/POSTINGS/RESIGNATION/2017 DATED 04-06-2019 DATED 04-06-2019 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::231:: ## **APPENDIX OF WA 2354/2018** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE A-I** **TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 20/02/2018 IN WA.396 OF 2018.** **ANNEXURE A-II** **TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 05/06/2018 IN RP.NO.432 OF 2018 IN WA 396/2018.** **ANNEXURE A-III TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 10/09/2018 DISMISSING SLP.NO.25745/2018.** **ANNEXURE IV TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 03/07/2017 DISMISSING SLP NO.10974/2017.** **ANNEXURE A-V TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 02/01/2013 IN WPC NO.19540/2009** **ANNEXURE A-VI TRUE COPY OF THE AUDIT REPORT DATED 05/02/2016 OF M.G.UNIVERSITY.** **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE B-1** TRUE COPY OF THE SYNDICATE MINUTES DATED 11.06.1993 **ANNEXURE B-2** TRUE COPY OF THE SYNDICATE MINUTES DATED 09.02.1995 **ANNEXURE B-3** TRUE COPY OF THE SYNDICATE RESOLUTION DATED 30.06.2005 **ANNEXURE B-4** TRUE COPY OF THE UNIVERSITY ORDER DATED 21.07.2005 W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::232:: ## **APPENDIX OF WA 2380/2018** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER (RELEVANT PORTION) 16.09.2017. ANNEXURE AII TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT ALONG WITH COVERING LETTER DT.27/09/2017. ANNEXURE AIII TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT PREPARED BY APPELLANT. ANNEXURE AIV TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DT.22/06/2018. ANNEXURE AV TRUE COPY OF POINTS AND DECISIONS ANNEXURE AVI TRUE COPY OF DATED AND DETAILS OF THIS CASE.** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::233:: ## **APPENDIX OF WA 2397/2018** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE I** **COPY OF THE R.P. NO.1007 OF 2018 FILED BY THE APPELLANTS BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT.** **ANNEXURE II** **COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.11.2018 IN R.P.NO.1007 OF 2018 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::234:: ## **APPENDIX OF WA 2402/2018** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE I** **COPY OF THE R.P. NO.1015 OF 2018 FILED BY THE APPELLANTS BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT.** **ANNEXURE II** **COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.11.2018 IN R.P.NO. 1015 OF 2018 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::235:: ## **APPENDIX OF WA 2410/2018** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR NO.29/CPAS/EST/STAFF/2018 DATED 27.12.2018 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS NO.29/CPAS/EST/STAFF/2017 DATED 27.12.2018 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE DRAFT AGREEMENT FORWARDED ALONG WITH ANNEXURE A1 CIRCULAR.** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::236:: ## **APPENDIX OF WA 2412/2018** |**PETITIONER'S/S**|**EXHIBITS:**| |---|---| |**ANNEXURE A1**|**TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR**| ||**NO.29/CPAS/EST/STAFF/2018 DATED 27.12.2018**| ||**ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT**| |**ANNEXURE A2**|**TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS**| ||**NO.29/CPAS/EST/STAFF/2017 DATED 27.12.2018**| ||**OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT**| |**ANNEXURE A3**|**TRUE COPY OF THE DRAFT AGREEMENT FORWARDED**| ||**ALONG WITH ANNEXURE A1 CIRCULAR**| W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::237:: ## **APPENDIX OF WA 2413/2018** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** |**ANNEXURE A1**|**TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR**| |---|---| ||**NO.29/CPAS/EST/STAFF/2018 DATED 27.12.2018**| ||**ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.**| |**ANNEXURE A2**|**TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS**| ||**NO.29/CPAS/EST/STAFF/2017 DATED 27.12.2018**| ||**OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.**| |**ANNEXURE A3**|**TRUE COPY OF THE DRAFT AGREEMENT FORWARDED**| ||**ALONG WITH ANNEXRUE A1 CIRCULAR.**| W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::238:: ## **APPENDIX OF WA 2460/2018** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE A1 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 16/11/2018 IN W.P.(C) NO.41873/2017.** **ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE DB JUDGMENT DATED 7.12.2016 DISMISSING W.A. NO. 827/2013** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::239:: ## **APPENDIX OF WA 2473/2018** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE A1** **TRUE COPY OF THE AUDIT REPORT DATED 5.2.2016 OF M.G.UNIVERSITY** **ANNEXURE A2** **TRUE COPY OF THE DB JUDGMENT DATED 7.12.2016 DISMISSING W.A.NO.825/2013** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::240:: ## **APPENDIX OF WA 2484/2018** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE A1** **THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF APPROVAL FOR THE YEAR 20192020 SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES, REGIONAL INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES AND RESEARCH TO THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA.** **ANNEXURE A2** **THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF APPROVAL FOR THE YEAR 20182019 SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES, REGIONAL INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES AND RESEARCH TO THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA.** W.A No. 2394/2018 and Connected cases ::241:: ## **APPENDIX OF WA 2512/2018** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE A-1 TRUE COPY OF THE AUDIT REPORT DATED 5.2.2016 OF M.G.UNIVERSITY** **ANNEXURE A-2** **TRUE COPY OF THE DB JUDGMENT DATED 7.12.2016 DISMISSING W.A.NO.827/2013.**