Y. JUBAIRA BEEVI Vs. UNIVERSITY OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ISSUE involved in this writ petition is as to whether the petitioner is eligible to get two advance increments based on implementation of the UGC Scheme.

(2.) THE petitioner is working as Selection Grade Lecturer in TKM College of Arts and Science, Kollan in the subject of Chemistry. She was appointed as a lecturer in the subject concerned, with effect from 16.11.1984. She was granted Senior Scale on 31.1.1997 and Selection Grade on 30.1.2000. The petitioner acquired qualification of Ph.D from the 1st respondent University on 31.12.2001. Ext. P1 is the extract of the Government Order through which UGC Scheme with respect to revision of scale of pay of teachers was implemented by the Government. Clause 6.18 of Ext. P1 Government Order stipulates that a Lecturer with Ph.D will be eligible for two advance increments, when she/he moves into the selection Grade/Reader. The claim of the petitioner in this regard was declined by the 2nd respondent through Ext. P2 letter stating the reason that the eligibility for advance increments will be restricted only with respect to those who acquire Ph.D in the relevant subject. Since the petitioner obtained Ph.D in the subject of 'Education', she is not eligible for the advance increments, is the findings. On receipt of Ext. P2 the petitioner submitted Ext. P4 representation before the 2nd respondent, pointing out certain instances where other teachers were granted with the benefit on acquiring Ph.D in subjects other than their relevant subjects. Evidently the 2nd respondent had called for report from the 1st respondent University and Ext. P5 letter was issued stating that, as per the Government Order implementing the revised scale of pay under the UGC Scheme, it is necessary to consider the claim for advance increments on the basis that the petitioner had acquired Ph.D qualification. This writ petition is filed on the premise that, despite Ext. P4 request and P5 recommendations made by the 1st respondent University, no decision is taken by the 2nd respondent.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contended that, as long as there is no insistence in Ext. P1 Government Order to the effect that the Ph.D should be acquired in the same subject itself, the clarification contained under Ext. P3 cannot operate against the petitioner. Further it is pointed out that, in a subsequent Government Order issued in the year 2000, the relevant clause was amended specifying that the incentives with respect to Ph.D will be awarded only in the relevant discipline itself. Since the petitioner had acquired qualification of Ph.D and moved into the Selection Grade at a time when Ext. P1 was in force, and since Ext. P1 does not insist upon that the acquisition of Ph.D should be in the relevant subject itself, there is no justification for denial of the benefits, is the contention.