K ANWAR Vs. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a person who was appointed, on contract basis, as Principal of the University College of Teacher Education, Nedumkandam, which is a self financing institution run by the Mahatma Gandhi University. The petitioner initially joined service as a Lecturer in General Education in the University College of Teacher Education, Elanthoor in the scale of pay of Rs. 8,000-275-13500. It was while working in the said post that he was appointed as Principal of the University College of Teacher Education, Nedumkandam on contract basis. The writ petition was filed when the respondent University did not pay the petitioner his salary for the period from November, 2013 onwards. The prayer in the writ petition is for a direction to the University to release the arrears of salary of the petitioner from November, 2013, onwards and for a further direction to the respondent University to regularise the service of the petitioner as Principal of the University College of Teacher Education, Nedumkandam.

(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent University wherein it is stated that the appointment of the petitioner was pursuant to a press release for engagement of Principal on contract basis for a consolidated monthly remuneration of Rs. 20,000/-. The petitioner had responded to the said press release and was appointed as Principal pursuant to the interview that was conducted for the said purpose. The engagement of the petitioner is stated to be for a limited period of one year on contract basis and hence, it is argued, that the request of the petitioner for the grant of a scale of pay as applicable to regular appointees to the post of Principal, cannot be extended to him. On the issue of regularisation, it is contended that persons appointed on contract basis do not hold any post on a regular scale of pay and that the mere fact that they worked for sometime in the said post, on contract basis, cannot be a reason for directing regularisation of their service. The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others v. Umadevi and Others, 2006 4 SCC 1 and the subsequent decision in Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Workmen, Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd., 2007 1 SCC 408, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Others v. L.V. Subramanyeswara and Another, 2007 5 SCC 326 and Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. v. Dan Bahadur Singh and Others, 2007 6 SCC 207 are also pressed into service for substantiating their contention against the regularisation of service of the petitioner. In the reply to the counter affidavit, the petitioner has placed reliance on a Government order dated 19.07.2014 which indicates that the Government had decided that the scale of pay for a Principal appointed by placement in Self Financing Colleges/Training Colleges in the State should be in the range of Rs. 37,400-67,000 with an increment of 5% of basic pay. Ext. P10 Government order is relied upon by the petitioner for contending that he too should be offered the same scale of pay since he is working as a Principal of the University College of Teacher Education.

(3.) I have heard Smt. Seetha Kutty Amma, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Varghese M. Easo, the learned Standing counsel for the respondent University.