Experience Cannot Substitute Duration Of Service Required By UGC Norms: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court on Tuesday observed that when the UGC norms mandate 8 years of continuous service in the post of 'Reader' in order to be eligible for promotion as 'Professor', then the experience gained by a person in a post which had been gained by him pursuant to an appointment which had hitherto been declared as 'illegal' by the Court would not be sufficient to act as substitute in order to make the person eligible. 

The Division Bench comprising of Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar and Justice Mary Joseph, in the review petition before it, observed that when there are norms stipulating the qualifications which have been laid down by the UGC and which are unambiguous, the Court could not substitute the same with its own interpretation to benefit a person. 

"Experience cannot substitute duration of service prescribed by the norms", it was observed.

The Revision Petitioner in the instant case, was initially appointed as Junior Lecturer in Hindi at N.S.S. Hindu College, Mattannur on 03.08.1970, whereafter he was promoted as Lecturer, and later, as Selection Grade Lecturer(Senior Scale). It is the petitioner's case that he joined the instant University on 01.11.1994, and was relieved from there after 2 years and 11 months. Thereafter, he rejoined the University on 17.11.1997 as Reader and relieved on 30.04.2005 since there had been a challenge against all the appointments made by the then Vice Chancellor of the University, which had been upheld by another Division Bench of the Kerala High Court.

It was contended by the Petitioner that since he had a total service period of 34 years, while the UGC Norms mandated only 8 years of service for a Reader to be promoted as Professor, hence, the petitioner was also entitled to his promotion. He further cited the Government of Kerala Order dated 19.05.1999, whereby the government had accorded sanction for treating the period of service of all teachers who had been thrown out of service of the University pursuant to the Division Bench decision, as valid. It was on this basis that the Petitioner had filed the Writ Petition in 2008.

The respondents to the Writ Petition before the Single Judge, on the other hand, contended that the petitioner had  joined service as Professor in Hindi on November 1st, 1994, but the said appointment had been set aside by the Division Bench, and thereupon, the period of service from November 1st, 1994 till 30th September 1997 was treated as 'service on deputation' and not regular service. Taken this way, it was contended that the petitioner had been in regular service as Reader for only 7 years, 5 months and 15 days, and hence, was ineligible for the promotion. When the University had sought Government clarification, the latter also held that the petitioner was ineligible. 

The Single Judge had regarded the petitioner's experience as a crucial factor in counting the number of years and allowed the writ on observing that the petitioner had 2.5 years of experience as Professor, which decision was set aside by the Division Bench in the Writ Appeal. 

In the instant review petition, it was contended by the counsel for the revision petitioner, Advocate Madhavankutty, that the petitioner had rendered service for 8 years and 10 months as as Selection Grade Lecturer at N.S.S. College, and relied upon a circular issued on 13th March 2003, whereby it had been stipulated that past service rendered as Associate Professor/Reader in any other recognized could be reckoned for promotion to post of Professor. It was argued that although the same, and a clarification Circular in this regard issued on 27th May 2003 had been withdrawn by the Government vide Circular dated 23rd September 2003, it could only be stated to have prospective effect. 

In the instant review petition, the Court could not find favour with the argument raised by the petitioner, and found that the Division Bench had already dealt with the arguments raised, and had accordingly, found that the 

"... period of service rendered by the petitioner in view of the illegal appointment gained colour as 'service on deputation' rather than regular service".

In this regard, finding that the petitioner did not have the requisite eight continuous years of service, the review petition was dismissed. 

The respondents in the instant case were represented by the Standing Counsel for Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit, Dinesh Mathew J. Muricken, and Senior Government Pleader, V. Binitha. 

Case Title: Dr. C.S. Rajan v. The Registrar, Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit & Ors. 

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 461

Click Here to Read/Download The Order