IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 15751 of 2008(A)
1. FOUSY.K.A.M,LECTURER, MAHATMA GANDHI
... Petitioner
2. RENGITHA.M.THOMAS,
3. A.MANJU, LECTURER MAHATMA GANDHI
4. SHIJI.A.C.,
Vs
1. THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY,
... Respondent
2. NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHERS EDUCATION,
3. JYOTHI.K,.
For Petitioner :SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K)
For Respondent :SRI.ALEXANDER JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :04/09/2008
O R D E R
K.T. SANKARAN, J.
............................................................................
W.P.(C) No. 15751, 16102, 16239,
18817 & 18920 OF 2008
............................................................................
Dated this the 4th September , 2008
J U D G M E N T
Since common questions are involved in these Writ Petitions except with
a slight variation in respect of subsequent events in W.P.(C) No. 15751 of
2008, these Writ Petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment.
The documents referred to in this judgment are as marked in W.P.(C) No.
15751 of 2008. The petitioners were working as Lecturers in the various
centres of University College of Teacher Education under the Mahatma Gandhi
University. Mahatma Gandhi University started various self financing
institutions. It is stated that the University has 12 centres of University College
of Teacher Education for conducting teacher’s training course. The centres are
being run under the Self Financing Scheme. The norms stipulated by the
National Council for Teacher Education govern these institutions. It is stated
that the petitioners were appointed pursuant to a valid process of selection after
publishing advertisements in various Malayalam dailies. The petitioners
executed bonds in favour of the University at the time of their engagement as
Lecturers on contract basis.
2. As per the terms of the agreement , the lecturer of University College
of Teacher Education would be paid a consolidated monthly remuneration of
W.P.(C) No. 15751, 16102, 16239,
18817 & 18920 OF 2008
2
Rs.8,000/- and the period of appointment is one year with effect from the date
mentioned in the agreement. It is stated in the agreement that the appointment
would be terminable on completion of the B.Ed course of one year or on
expiry of the period of one year from the date noted in the agreement,
whichever is earlier unless otherwise renewed by the University. Clause 7 of
the agreement reads as follows:
“7. After termination of the contract, the Lecturer shall not
be entitled to any claim for re-employment , retirement
benefits or any other benefits on account of the service
rendered by him/her. Provided that either party hereto
shall be at liberty to terminate this agreement on giving
the other party one month’s notice in writing provided
also that in cases of gross misconduct, dereliction of duty
or violation of any terms of this agreement, the University
may terminate this agreement forthwith without notice or
compensation in lieu of notice , on paying the Lecturer
the proportion of consolidated remuneration due upto the
date of termination. In respect of any matter in regard to
which no provision has been made in this agreement, the
provisions of the Kerala Service Rules shall apply to the
extent to which they are applicable to the service hereby
provided for and the decision of the University as to their
applicability shall be final.”
W.P.(C) No. 15751, 16102, 16239,
18817 & 18920 OF 2008
3
3. It is stated that though the B.Ed batch for 2007 ended in December,
2007, the petitioners were permitted to continue in service. According to the
petitioners that was an indication that the service of the petitioners were not
terminated on completion of B.Ed batch for the year. It is also stated that the
first respondent University had directed the petitioners to execute fresh bonds
with effect from January, 2008. The Southern Regional Committee, Bangalore
of the NCTE inspected the 12 centres of University Colleges of Teacher
Education conducted by the first respondent University. It is stated that after the
inspection, the University was intimated that recognition of the three centres
would be withdrawn. The intake of students in seven out of nine remaining
centres was directed to be reduced by the Committee. The University has filed
appeals challenging the decision of the Committee . The appeals are pending.
4. The petitioners state that since the intake of students for the year
2008 was reduced in view of the direction issued by the Southern Regional
Committee, Bangalore, the Syndicate of the first respondent University took a
decision to bring down the number of teachers in the various centres of
University College of Teacher Education to make the student teacher ratio in
tune with Ext. P1 norms. The petitioners state that in purported implementation
of Ext.P1 norms, Ext. P3 order dated 21.05.2008 was issued by the first
W.P.(C) No. 15751, 16102, 16239,
18817 & 18920 OF 2008
4
respondent University terminating the service of 26 Lecturers working on
contract basis. These Writ Petitions are filed challenging Ext. P3 order dated
21.05.2008
5. The first respondent University has filed a counter affidavit . It is stated
in the counter affidavit that the NCTE, after the inspection of the 12 centres,
issued notices withdrawing recognition of three centres of University College of
Teacher Education. There was also a direction to the first respondent University
to reduce intake of students in seven centres. Pursuant to the said direction,
there was a total reduction of 1030 seats in the Centres of University College of
Teacher Education. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that due to
reduction of students, number of teachers became surplus. Anticipating
favourable orders in the appeals filed by the University before the NCTE, the
University was maintaining surplus teachers on adhoc basis even after the
expiry of the contract period. Finally the Syndicate of the University resolved
at its meeting held on 22.04.2008 to retain only the required number of
faculty as per the norms of NCTE. It was also decided to renew the term of
contract of those Lecturers who are required to be retained and to terminate
the service of the teachers on contract basis, identified as surplus, on the basis
of the subject seniority starting from the juniormost.
W.P.(C) No. 15751, 16102, 16239,
18817 & 18920 OF 2008
5
6. One of the contentions raised by the petitioners is that while
terminating the engagement of the petitioners, their juniors were retained on
contract basis by the University. This contention is replied by the University by
stating that the service of some of the teachers were terminated who are
identified as surplus on the basis of subject seniority and not on the basis of their
date of engagement on contract basis .
7. Adv. Shri Mathew John, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C)
No. 15751 of 2008 submitted that the Writ Petition, as far as it relates to the first
petitioner, has become infructuous as she has been re-engaged by the
University till the next Syndicate meeting. In the reply affidavit filed by the 3rd
petitioner in W.P.(C) 15751 of 2008, it is stated as follows:
“In this context I may be permitted to submit that when
total seniority is reckoned I am entitled to have my service
from September, 2005 when I joined the U.C.T.E. in the
subject Physical Science. Though later I changed my
subject to General Education in January, 2006. But the
following Lecturers namely, Sajini ThomaS, U.C.T.E. ,
Nedumkandam and Jisha Baby, U.C.T.E., Kanjirappally,
who are lecturers in Physical Science and who were
appointed at a later point of time than my appointment are
now retained in preference to me. This is perse
discriminatory. The aforesaid conduct of the 1st respondent
W.P.(C) No. 15751, 16102, 16239,
18817 & 18920 OF 2008
6
would show that they have arbitrarily acted while deciding
the seniority of the lecturers liable for termination in Ext. P3
order. “
8. The Standing Counsel for the University submitted that as regards
this objection, the University will bestow its attention and that if there is any
acceptable grievance, it will be looked into within a period of one month.
9. As regards the main contention raised in the Writ Petitions, that the
petitioners are entitled to continue in service as they have a legal right to
continue, I do not find any substance. The petitioners were engaged on contract
basis. Bonds/agreements were executed by them at the time of entering into
the engagement. As per the terms of the agreement, the period of engagement
was fixed and a consolidated amount was agreed to be paid to the petitioners.
The engagement of the petitioners was not on a regular basis, but it was purely
on contract basis. The conditions of service as in the case of regular selection
and appointment would not apply to service on contract basis. To my mind, the
petitioners do not have any legal right to claim for continuance of the
engagement as Lecturers on contract basis.
10. Adv. Shri Chandrababu, learned counsel for the petitioners in some
of the Writ Petitions submitted that the reasons put forward by the University for
W.P.(C) No. 15751, 16102, 16239,
18817 & 18920 OF 2008
7
retaining some of the Lecturers stating that subject seniority was taken as criteria
for retaining them has no substance. If the contention of the University that
there was no regular appointment is accepted , the learned counsel pointed out
that the contention raised by the University justifying retention of some of the
juniors cannot be accepted.
11. Adv. Shri T.A. Shaji, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the
University submitted that the expression ‘subject seniority’ was used in a loose
sense and in the ordinary parlance and that it cannot be interpreted to mean
that there was a regular selection and appointment. The nature of the
employment cannot be changed only because of the decision of the Syndicate to
retain some of the teachers on the basis of subject requirement. It is for the
University to decide as to whom among the teachers, who are engaged on
contract basis, should be retained. The petitioners cannot challenge the right
of the first respondent in the matter of exercise of its powers in this regard.
12. For the aforesaid reasons, I am not inclined to allow the prayers
made by the petitioners. However, the grievance voiced by the third petitioner
in W.P.(C) 15751 of 2008 which is referred to in paragraph 7 above will be
considered as stated in paragraph 8, by the University. Accordingly, the Writ
Petitions are dismissed. The dismissal of the Writ Petitions would not preclude
W.P.(C) No. 15751, 16102, 16239,
18817 & 18920 OF 2008
8
either the petitioners from approaching the first respondent pointing out any
change of circumstances or the University from re-engaging them in case of
necessity.
Adv. Shri Chandrababu pointed out that some of the lecturers who are
retained by the University do not possess the requisite qualification. It is
submitted that while retaining such unqualified persons, the service of the
petitioners who are having requisite qualification were terminated. Adv. Shri T.A.
Shaji, learned Standing Counsel for the University submitted that the University
would be interested in seeing that only qualified persons would be appointed or
retained as Lecturers on contract basis and certainly it will be taken care of at
the time of engagement of teachers on contract basis.
Writ Petitions are dismissed, however, with the above observations and
directions.
K.T. SANKARAN,
JUDGE.
lk