NIZAR HUSSAIN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is challenging Ext.P10 order by which his request for reckoning the service rendered by him in a foreign university, while he was on leave without allowance, towards Career Advancement Scheme was rejected.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that he has been working as an Assistant Professor from 24.09.1988, in the Mechanical Engineering Department of TKM College of Engineering, which is a private aided College. He applied for leave without allowance for employment abroad under Appendix XIIA of Kerala Service Rules ('KSR' for short) for the period from 18.02005 to 17.02010 and leave was granted under Appendix XIIA of Kerala Service Rules ('KSR' for short). The petitioner submits that he was working in a foreign University during the above period as a teaching staff. After rejoining duty, on expiry of the leave, he submitted Ext.P7 representation, requesting for counting the service rendered by him in Riyadh Community College under King Saud University, a foreign University, for the period from 18.02005 to 17.02010, for Career Advancement Scheme promotion, relying on clause 10.1 of UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2010 ('UGC Regulations, 2010' for short). In support of his claim, he produced Ext.P6 certificate of May 2011 issued by Director General of Faculty Staff and Personal Affairs of King Saud University. In the application he pointed out that the service in foreign university was "while in service" and stated that as per the clarification he received in Ext.P5 letter of the Deputy Secretary of UGC his service was liable to be counted for career advancement promotion. By Ext P8 letter Govt rejected his representation on the ground that there is no statutory provision to re-consider his case. Petitioner approached the Lok Ayukta filing Complaint No.791 of 2015 and by Ext P9 order dated 4.9.2016, the Lok Ayukta set aside Ext.P8 order of Government, for want of any reasons in it and directed the Secretary to Government to pass fresh orders after hearing the petitioner. Ext.P10 order was passed thereafter.

(3.) Petitioner who argued in person, relied on the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Radhakrishna Pillai Vs. Tranvancore Devaswom Board and others [2016(2) KHC 119] and argued that he is entitled to the benefit of the UGC Regulations, in the light of Ext P5 letter.