RASHTRIYA SANSKRIT SANSTHAN, (DEEMED UNIVERSITY) Vs. DR. K. SARALA DEVI, RETIRED ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, RASHTRIYA SANSKRIT SANSTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C)No. 17004/2012. The appellant was the 2nd respondent in that Writ Petition.

(2.) The writ petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer by an institution known as 'Guruvayoor Sahithya Deepika Sanskrit Vidya Peetham', in the year 1974. The said institution was taken over by the appellant, a deemed University, in the year 1979. The writ petitioner earlier approached this Court through W.P. (C)No.7261/2007, which was disposed of by Ext.P1 judgment dated 30.10.2007 finding that the writ petitioner was entitled to be absorbed as a Lecturer, on the take over of the Vidya Peetham by the appellant. It is also found that, if the writ petitioner is, based on such absorption as Lecturer, entitled to continue in service till the age of 62, she shall be allowed to continue in service till the age of 62. It is not disputed that this judgment has become final. The writ petitioner, thereafter, filed representations claiming successive promotion as Associate Professor, Reader and Professor under the career advancement scheme (CAS) of the University Grants Commission (UGC). Ext.P.1 judgment was implemented through Annexure.R(1)(a) and by Annexure-R1(a) dated 03.03.2010, the writ petitioner and one other Lecturer were also granted senior scale on completion of eight years of regular service from the date of absorption. It is the case of the writ petitioner that she is entitled to be granted the benefits of Lecturer (Selection Grade) with effect from 16.7.1995, that of Reader with effect from 10.5.1996 and thereafter to the category of Professor under the provisions of the career advancement scheme of the University Grants Commission. The representation submitted by the writ petitioner as Ext.P5, on 9.3.2012 was rejected by the appellant University through Ext.P6 communication dated 14.6.2012. The writ petition was, therefore, filed challenging Ext.P6 and Ext.P.8 (minutes of the selection committee) which considered and rejected the case of the writ petitioner for placement in the post of Selection Grade Lecturer/Reader under the career advancement scheme of the University Grants Commission.

(3.) On a consideration of the matter, the learned single Judge found that the reasons mentioned for denying the benefits under the career advancement scheme for Selection Grade Lecturer/Reader etc., (which was primarily that the refresher courses undertaken by the Writ Petitioner in the year 1992 and 1995 could not be reckoned as she had not undertaken the refresher courses after placement in the senior course and after the requisite period of service) was found unsustainable. The learned Single Judge also found that persons similarly placed had been granted the benefits and it will be arbitrary and unlawful to deny such benefits to the writ petitioner.