JOSY JOSEPH C. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner had entered service as Junior Lecturer (Malayalam) in the Bharat Matha College, Thrikkakkara on 04.01.1982. and had various temporary approved spells as Junior Lecturer till 30.06.1986. Between 16.11.1988 and 28.02.2002, the petitioner had three spells of temporary approved service as Lecturer. The petitioner was appointed against a permanent vacancy of Lecturer on 03.06.2002, which appointment was approved by the 2nd respondent University as per Ext.P1 order dated 30.05.2003. While continuing so, the petitioner was granted placement as Lecturer Senior Scale with effect from 20.09.2003. As per Ext.P2 order dated 24.11.2011, the 2nd respondent University, approved the Placement of the petitioner as Lecturer Senior Scale with effect from 20.09.2003. On concurrence for the placement being sought from the 3rd respondent, it was informed that the workload need not be taken into consideration for Senior Scale/Selection Grade promotions and therefore, the concurrence of the 3rd respondent was not required. Later, by Ext.P4 communication dated 25.09.2012, the 3rd respondent raised an objection against the placement of the petitioners, on the premise that the petitioner had not undergone the requisite refresher course or orientation course. The 3rd respondent sought clarification in this regard from the 2nd respondent University and by Ext.P5 communication the University clarified that, since the petitioner was due to retire on 31.05.2013 and Ext.P2 order granting placement as Senior Scale Lecturer was dated 24.11.2011, the petitioner was not required to undergo any refresher and orientation course since the retirement was within three years of his placement. In support of the clarification, the University made available Ext.P6 circular issued by the University Grants Commission wherein also it was stated that teachers superannuating within three years are exempted from attending refresher courses.

(2.) Not being satisfied with Ext.P5 circular, the 3rd respondent issued Ext.P7 communication informing the Principal of the College that it had sought clarification on the issue from the University and had requested for instructions from the Government. By Ext.P8, the University reiterated the position that the petitioner is not required to undergo orientation course for the purpose of placement. But, the Government on the other hand found fault with the stand taken by the University and issued Ext.P9 directing the 3rd respondent to consider the promotion granted to the petitioner as Lecturer Senior Scale strictly in accordance with G.O.(P) No.171/1999/HEdn. dated 21.12.1999. In terms of Ext.P9, the 3rd respondent issued Ext.P10 letter to the Principal requiring reconsideration of the petitioner's placement.

(3.) Aggrieved by the stand taken by the 3rd respondent and the Government, this writ petition is filed seeking to quash Exts.P4, P7, P9 and P10 and for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing respondents 2 and 4 to grant the petitioner all monetary benefits arising out of Ext.P2 order and to consider his claim for placement as Selection Grade Lecturer with effect from the date on which it fell due and to release consequent monetary benefits.