ANGELIQUE C R Vs. STATE OF KERALA REP BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVT LOCAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT (RURAL) GOVT SECRETARIAT TRIVANDRUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is before this Court challenging Ext.P8 order passed on the representation of the petitioner for grant of salary for the period between 01-04-2002 to 31-08-2002; rejecting the same. THE facts relevant for the consideration of the above writ petition is that the second respondent entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the HUDCO (who is not in the party array), on 12-07-1997 with respect to a project to be carried on in collaboration for a period of five years commencing in the year 1997 and ending on 31-03-2002. THE collaboration stated to be for urban studies, as per the Memorandum of Understanding, provided for appointment of Professors and Associate Professors entitled to draw pay at the UGC scale which liability even according to the petitioner was on HUDCO. THE petitioner was appointed as an Associate Professor initially for a period of two years on 18-03-1998 and subsequently, her term was extended to 31-03-2002.

(2.) ON 31-03-2002 by virtue of the specific terms of the Memorandum of Understanding, the collaboration came to an end and the petitioner's service also would have come to a natural end. However, the petitioner chose to approach this Court by filing O.P.No.7763 of 2002 wherein an interim order was issued dated 01-04-2002 allowing the petitioner to continue to function as a Assistant Professor in the Centre for Urban Studies attached to KILA, the second respondent but however making the eligibility to draw the salary dependent upon the Memorandum of Understanding being extended and the competent authority deciding to retain the petitioner in service. The petitioner relies on Ext.P2 to contend that the earlier Memorandum of Understanding was continued upto 31-03-2005 and she had a claim for continuance as an Assistant Professor.

(3.) THE petitioner's claim for salary during the period between 01-04-2002 and 31-08-2002 is primarily based on Ext.P1 and P3 orders. Ext.P1 interim order according to me, does not confer any right on the petitioner to continue as an Associate Professor with the second respondent or in the project of the second respondent since the said project was under a specific Memorandum of Understanding for five years which had come to an end on 31-03-2002. However, the petitioner chose to rush to this Court for a continuance, which was granted to her with a rider that the eligibility for salary would depend on the Memorandum of Understanding being extended and on the competent authority deciding to retain the petitioner's service. Evidently, the Memorandum of Understanding which was signed subsequently did not relate to the earlier project nor did the new project have the post of Associate Professor. It is pertinent that none of the MoUs have been produced by the petitioner nor are the averments of the second respondent in the counter affidavit been controverted. HUDCO which is said to have the liability to pay the persons engaged in the earlier project also has not been made a party in this writ petition. It is clear that the 2nd respondent had taken a decision dated 09-07-2002 not to continue the petitioner which would again disentitle the petitioner for salary from 01-04-2002 even as per Ext.P1 order.