SAMUEL MATHEW Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since common issue is raised in both these writ petitions they are heard and disposed of together by a common judgment, in which WP(C) No.10699 of 2020 is treated as the leading case.

(2.) The breif facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition are as follows:-

(3.) Petitioner submits that Ext.P3 reply is given on the basis of Exts.P6 and P7 Government orders. A perusal of Exts.P6 and P7 reveal that the 1st respondent Government accepts the mandate of UGC regulation 2010 for promotion and designation of eligible Associate Professors as Professors, however the excuse put forward by the 1st respondent is that they will have to incur a huge financial burden if the Associate Professors are designated as Professors in private aided colleges. Petitioner also relies on Ext.P8 UGC regulation which also makes it clear that an Associate Professor having three years of completed service shall be eligible to be designated as Professor. Petitioner would further submit that by Ext.P9 order the Government implemented UGC Regulation 2018 strictly in accordance with the standard norms and procedure set out by the UGC Regulation 2018, and pursuant to the said Government order produced as Ext.P9 petitioner applied for designation as Professor and she was desginated as Professor with effect from 18/7/2018 as per Ext.P10 order.