IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 24852 of 2009(B)
1. V.R.RAJALAKSHMI,
... Petitioner
2. REELA VIJAYAKUMAR,
Vs
1. THE SECRETARY,
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,
3. THE PRINCIPAL,
4. THE PRINCIPAL,
5. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
For Petitioner :SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.)
For Respondent :SRI.A.N.RAJAN BABU, SC, S.N.TRUST
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :20/01/2010
O R D E R
S. Siri Jagan, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
W.P(C) No. 24852 of 2009
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dated this, the 20th day of January, 2010.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioners are Lecturers (Selection Grade) in English,
working in S.N. College, Chempazhanthy and S.N. College for
Women, Kollam. By Exts. P1 and P2, the petitioners have been
deputed to undergo Faculty Improvement Programme sponsored by
the University Grants Commission, whereby teachers of Government
and Aided Colleges are given deputation benefit for undergoing
M.Phil and Ph.D courses, during which period they would continue to
receive salary in the post of Lecturers (Selection Grade) and the
salary paid by the Government to the substitute teachers appointed in
their place would be reimbursed by the UGC. Since the petitioners
could not complete the course within the deputation period originally
granted, the petitioners applied for extension. That extension was
approved by the UGC. But, by Ext. P7 and P8, the State Government
refused to grant extension on the ground that the deputation was
sanctioned with the specific condition that no further extension would
be granted. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioners have
filed this writ petition challenging Exts. P7 and P8.
2. The contention of the State is that although the UGC would
reimburse the salary to be paid to the substituted teachers, the salary
of the petitioners would have to be borne by the Government with no
corresponding return to the Government. It is also submitted that
they have been given deputation benefits after execution of a bond
undertaking that they would complete the programme within the
period mentioned therein, which period has already expired.
According to the learned Government Pleader, the petitioners have no
right to get extension of time contrary to the specific clauses agreed
to by them in the bond executed by them. The learned Government
Pleader therefore argues in support of Exts. P7 and P8.
W.P.C. No. 24852/09 -: 2 :-
3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail.
4. The very object of Faculty Improvement Programme
sponsored by the UGC is to enhance the standard of teaching and
standard of education in the State. The Government would not lose
anything because they are not liable to incur any extra expenses t on
account of the petitioners being deputed for Faculty Improvement
Programme. The extra expenses necessary for appointing substitute
teachers are borne by the UGC. If the petitioners have not completed
the Faculty Improvement Programme, then that wold be a national
waste since the object of the Faculty Improvement Programme would
not be achieved, if they are not permitted to complete the Programme
and at the same time the amount spent on them would go waste. By
approving the extension requested for by the petitioners, the UGC,
who are sponsoring the Facility Improvement Programme, has
accepted the fact that further time is necessary for completing the
programme by the petitioners. In such circumstances, I am of opinion
that there is no justification for the Government to refuse to grant the
extension requested for by the petitioners. It is also a fact that in the
case of many other teachers, the Government have granted extension
of the period of deputation of teachers deputed for Faculty
Improvement Programme.
Accordingly, Exts.P7 and P8 are quashed. The Government is
directed to give approval for the extension requested for by the
petitioners and approved by the UGC and release salary due to them
for the period of deputation, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate,
within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.
Tds/