ABDU RAHIMAN K U PROFESSOR (CIVIL ENGINEERING) SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING Vs. COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The dispute in this writ petition is with regard to the cancellation of promotion granted to the petitioner as Professor in Civil Engineering under the 1st respondent University. The petitioner contends that he was appointed as Lecturer in Civil Engineering on 7.6.1999 and was placed in the senior scale from 16.8.1999. He was promoted as Reader w.e.f.16.8.2004. On implementation of the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS for short) of All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE for short) , the petitioner was redesignated as Associate Professor w.e.f. 16.8.2007. By Exhibit P1 Government Order dated 7.12.2010, the revised AICTE Scheme was introduced in the Universities in Kerala and accordingly the petitioner's claim for promotion on completion of three years of service as Associate Professor was taken up in terms of Exts.P1 and P2. It is submitted that the petitioner had produced four journal publications and five conference papers before the Selection Committee and the Committee recommended the promotion of the petitioner w.e.f 16.8.2010. However, a condition was imposed that the petitioner should publish at least one quality paper in a reputed National/International Journal or get sanction for externally funded project worth Rs.20 lakhs. The minutes of the selection committee is produced as Exhibit P3. The petitioner had sought a review of the condition and it is submitted that by Ext.P4 order dated 5.12.2016 sanction was accorded by the Vice Chancellor for promoting the petitioner to the post of Professor w.e.f. 16.8.2010 by upgrading the post of Associate Professor held by him. The petitioner's pay as Professor was also fixed. However, by Exhibit P8 order the petitioner was informed that the Syndicate in its meeting held on 28.7.2017 had resolved not to ratify the decision taken by the Vice Chancellor to promote the petitioner and the promotion stands cancelled. This order is under challenge.

(2.) The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that Clause 6.1.21 of Exhibit P1 Government Order specifically provides that the conditions laid down for CAS are applicable for those promotions/placements which are effected from and after the date of the order and that the petitioner's promotion being effective from 16.8.2010, a date earlier than the date of Exhibit P1 order, the requirements now insisted upon would have no application. It is further contended that other persons, who had been granted promotions in identical situation as that of the petitioner by Exhibit P6 proceedings, had been given the benefit of clause 6.1.21 and the conditions imposed in such cases were waived by the University and the promotions stand without any change. It is contended that Exhibit P8 is arbitrary, discriminatory and vitiated by total want of application of mind.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. It is contended therein as follows: