High Court Kerala High Court

Rani Vijaya G.L. vs State Of Kerala on 5 October, 2009

Kerala High Court
Rani Vijaya G.L. vs State Of Kerala on 5 October, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 12921 of 2008(L)


1. RANI VIJAYA G.L.,LECTURER IN MATHS,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. S.SURESH KUMAR, LECTURER IN PHYSICS,

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

2. INSTITUTE OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.JAJU BABU

                For Respondent  :SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SC, IHRDE

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :05/10/2009

 O R D E R
                       ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
                  -------------------------
                    W.P.(C.) No.12921 of 2008
            ---------------------------------
            Dated, this the 5th day of October, 2009

                          J U D G M E N T

The petitioners are lecturers in the IHRD Colleges in

Mathematics and Physics respectively. Presently, the 1st petitioner is

working in an Engineering College and the 2nd petitioner, in a Non-

Engineering College. Their regular services commenced with effect

from 01/09/1998, as is evident from Exts.P2 & P5. Subsequently,

the petitioners acquired M.Phil/PhD. As per Ext.P7 dated

28/02/2004, options were invited to the Engineering Colleges

under the IHRD, and according to the petitioners, both of them

submitted their option. Ext.P9 reply was given to the 2nd petitioner

informing that there was no sanctioned post in the College opted by

him. In so far as the 1st petitioner is concerned, no reply was given.

Subsequently, by Ext.P10, with effect from 01/07/2006, though

UGC scale was introduced in the Non-Engineering subjects in the

Engineering Colleges, the petitioners were not extended to the

benefit, and it was at that stage, this writ petition was filed seeking

WP(C) No.12921/2008
-2-

to compel the authorities to accept the options exercised by them.

2. In paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit, reason for not

accepting the options exercised by the petitioners pursuant to

Ext.P7, has been stated thus :-

“The option and request of the 1st petitioner was not considered
because of the non-availability of vacant sanctioned post in the
Engineering College, Chengannur, the institution of her choice.
The option and request of the 2nd petitioner was not considered as
he did not possess the qualification stipulated at the time of
invitation of the application. Further no sanctioned post of full
time Lecturer in Physics was available in Engineering College
service after his acquisition of M.Phil degree in 2003. The juniors
to the petitioners were qualified as per Rules at the time of
invitation of application for option and so they were given posting
at Engineering Colleges.”

A reading of the above paragraph shows that in so far as the 1st

petitioner is concerned, there was no sanctioned post in the College

opted by her. However, a reading of Ext.P7, by which options were

invited, shows that the options were to be exercised in favour of

the Engineering Colleges under the IHRD and not in respect of any

particular college. The option was exercised by her in the light of

Ext.P7 and it is also her specific case that she did not specify any

College. If this be the position, non consideration of the option

WP(C) No.12921/2008
-3-

exercised by the 1st petitioner is erroneous.

3. In so far as the 2nd petitioner is concerned, a reading of

paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit shows that the case of the

respondent is that he acquired M.Phil only in 2003, and that

subsequent to that no sanctioned post was available. It also does

not appear to be correct in the light of Ext.P7 circular inviting

options, which was issued only in 2004. In the light of the above,

the reason stated in paragraph 6 does not appear to be acceptable.

4. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of directing the

respondents to consider the option exercised by the petitioners and

fresh orders in this behalf shall be passed as expeditiously as

possible, at any rate, within two months of production of a copy of

this judgment.

5. As already stated, the 1st petitioner is now working in an

Engineering College, and while so, for accommodating the 3rd

respondent, she was ordered to be transferred, and that was stayed

by this Court by order dated 28/05/2008 in I.A.Nos.6346 & 6347 of

2008. Now that fresh orders are to be passed, it is directed that the

interim order of stay dated 28/05/2008 will remain in force until

WP(C) No.12921/2008
-4-

fresh orders are passed as above.

Needless to say that the claim of the petitioners for UGC

benefits will depend upon the orders to be passed as directed

above.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
jg