Dr. Seneera V.A. & Anr. vs Union Of India & Ors.

Applicants, two in number, were Assistant Professors in Calicut University Centres at Kadmat and Andrott respectively of the Union Territory of Lakshadweep. Both of them are Post Graduates in Arabic. The 1^st applicant is a Ph.D holder also. The applicants were working as Assistant Professors in the stations from 28.10.2019 and 18.07.2016 respectively on contract basis. At that time, the colleges were functioning under the affiliation of the Calicut University on the basis of a Memorandum of Understanding, MoU for short, reached between the Lakshadweep Administration and the Calicut University. Their period of appointment was extended from time to time. While so, the 3^rd respondent issued Annexure-A5 letter to the 4^th respondent stating that the MoU between the two organisations has expired and further extension has not been signed, so that requested the Calicut University that the members of staff in the lists appended to the communication should be allowed to continue till 31.03.2022 and their salary will be paid till 31.03.2022. The grievance of the applicants is that thereafter the 3^rd respondent issued orders replacing them by appointing less qualified persons in derogation of the UGC norms. That has caused considerable injustice to the applicants as well as to the student community. It is the mandate that appointment of teachers in the Institutions under the control of Government of India should be in accordance with the UGC norms, under a uniform recruitment method. But Annexure-A6 was issued by appointing less qualified persons in the place of the applicants. Later, Annexure-A7 order was issued by the 3^rd respondent retaining some of the teaching faculty who were working along with the applicants. However, the name of the applicants are not included in Annexure-A7. According to them, such a conduct of the respondents is highly discriminatory and against principles of natural justice. They were dropped from the list violating the principles of natural justice, without giving them opportunity of being heard. Therefore, they seek a direction to the respondents to include the names of the applicants in Annexure-A7 and to allow them to continue in service as Assistant Professors (Arabic) under the 3^rd respondent.

It is further stated that the applicants are highly qualified, but are over aged and cannot aspire to get employment elsewhere and therefore it was highly oppressive that they were not included in the list of appointees.

On behalf of respondents 2 and 3 the Administrative Officer of the Lakshadweep Administration Office, Kochi filed a reply challenging the very maintainability of the O.A. According to him, the applicants were appointed by the Calicut University on contract basis, on daily wage. They are employees of the Calicut University and therefore, redressal of their grievance is only through the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala and this Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to take seisin of the matter. He has reiterated that the applicants were never employed by the Administration of Lakshadweep, they have no right to object redeployment of Government officials, which is absolutely within the administrative domain of the Union Territory of Lakshadweep.

Further it is submitted that there was a MoU between the Lakshadweep Administration and the Calicut University for running University Centres in different islands. There is provision for discontinuance of the same and in such situation teaching and non-teaching staff and support staff will revert back to the University of Calicut without any further liability on the part of the Union Territory of Lakshadweep. Copy of that MoU has been produced and marked as Annexure-R1(a).

According to the respondents, in spite of the above position the O.A. has been filed even without impleading the University of Calicut as a necessary party. Later, a policy decision was taken by the Lakshadweep Administration not to extend the terms of agreement in the MoU with the Calicut University, instead decided to establish full-fledged Arts and Science Colleges under the affiliation of the Central University of Pondicherry. Annexure-A6 was issued during the transition period and in the light of the MoU the applicants have no right to question the action taken by the respondents.

It is reiterated that the applicants were appointed by the Calicut University and have no right to object the Administration in making use of regular employees. Moreover, in the light of the decision in Umadevi v. State of Karnataka [(2006) 4 SCC 1], they have no right to seek regularisation. There is no regular sanctioned post as claimed by the applicants. The employer of the applicant is the Calicut University and therefore, none of the reliefs can be granted.

I heard Sri.T.R.Madhu, learned counsel for the applicants, who vehemently argued that when similarly situated employees were appointed by the Administration under Annexure-A7, the applicants were left out and were discriminated against. Moreover, in violation of the norms of the UGC, incompetent persons drawn from schools have been appointed in the place of the applicants in colleges, which is an injustice caused to the student community. There is absolutely no reason why the period of appointment of the applicants was not extended.

On the other hand, Smt.Sreekala K.L., learned Standing Counsel for the Lakshadweep Administration submitted that as per the MoU executed between the Administration and the University, the Administration had liability only to give physical conveniences and the academic matters were looked after by the Calicut University. They deployed contract employees and the applicants were thus engaged as Assistant Professors. Now the MoU is not in existence; after termination of the MoU, colleges are managed by the Administration itself and the courses are affiliated to the University of Pondicherry. There is no basis in the claims of the applicants.

According to the learned Standing Counsel, even though claims were made by the applicants, they have not produced the copy of their appointment order. Now, producing on an order dated 08.12.2020 issued by the University of Calicut, by which term of appointment of the 1^st applicant and two others were extended, she pointed out that the applicants are the employees of the Calicut University which means that there is no employer-employee relationship between the Administration and the applicants. According to the learned counsel, such a vital aspect has been suppressed by the applicants. Now there is no MoU with the Calicut University, both are regular colleges run by the Administration with the affiliation of the Pondicherry University. Referring to a communication dated 01.12.2023 produced along with M.A.28/2024 she said that now Arabic course is not being taught in both the colleges and services of such Arabic Professors are not necessary.

The learned counsel representing the Calicut University submitted that the applicants have not sought any relief against the University. According to him, they stand by the statements of respondents 2 and 3. The MoU between Calicut University and the Administration was from 2005 to 2021. After 2021 it was not renewed. So long as such an MoU is not in existence, they have no liability to extend the services of the applicant. It may be true that some of the employees were allowed to continue by the Administration, but that is on their own decision and that the University has no liability to continue the services of the applicants.

Evidently, both the applicants were Assistant Professors appointed on contract basis in the Calicut University campus at Kadmat and Andrott respectively. Both are Post Graduates in Arabic. The 1^st applicant is a Ph.D holder as well. Both of them claim that they are highly qualified and satisfy UGC norms to impart education on the subject to college students. They are contract employees. Reliefs are sought against respondents 1 to 3, who are the Union of India represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource, the Administrator, Union Territory of Lakshadweep as well as the Director of Education, Kavaratti. They claim that while working as Assistant Professors under the Calicut University, as per Annexure-A5 letter dated 28.10.2021 the 3^rd respondent had addressed the 4^th respondent for continuing their activities in the islands till 31.03.2022 and continue the services of the employees including the applicants till then. Thereafter, as per Annexure-A6, the 3^rd respondent issued orders replacing the services of the applicants. In other words, the places occupied by the applicants were filled up using the services of school teachers. The applicants submit that such school teachers do not possess necessary academic qualifications as prescribed by the UGC norms to teach college students and therefore such a conduct of the 3^rd respondent is illegal and against public interest. Thereafter, by Annexure-A7 the 3^rd respondent issued orders appointing some of the persons engaged along with the applicants. However, the names of the applicants have been omitted and thereby their services were retrenched without affording any opportunity of being heard, it is submitted.

Admittedly, the applicants are contract employees. Therefore, they do not have a vested right of continuation. The Annexure-A5 indicates that the term of appointment was liable to be terminated with effect from 31.03.2022, as suggested by the 3^rd respondent. The 3^rd respondent thereby addressed the 4^th respondent and said that their services shall be till 31.03.2022. As a necessary corollary and having regard to the subsequent developments it is pertinent to note that Annexure-A5 sounds to sever the MoU with effect from 31.03.2022, as a prelude to their establishing academic relationship with the Pondicherry University. The other developments had taken place after Annexure-A5 order. The applicant submit that they have been discriminated against. When persons similarly placed were allowed to continue as per Annexure-A7, a different treatment was meted out to the applicants, which has caused them considerable prejudice and difficulties.

All the same, the applicants do not state the source of their employment, which was very conspicuous. They have not produced the order of appointment. A plain reading of the Original Application would indicate that they were engaged by the respondents 2 and 3 for the colleges run by them. But the definite case of respondents 2 and 3 is that they were engaged by the Calicut University, there was an MoU between the Administration and the Calicut University on the academic side, whereby when physical amenities were provided by the Administration, academic side was looked after by the Calicut University and thus under the Annexure-R1(a) MoU, it was the responsibility of the University to provide teachers whereas their remuneration was met by the Administration.

Annexure-R1(a) is the MoU signed between the Administration and the Calicut University on 30.07.2005. Initially it was executed for a period of five years, which was to be continued on mutual understanding. Part-I of the MoU indicates that, among other things, the University of Calicut agreed to provide teaching faculty on a package basis for various courses as shown in Appendix-I(a) and I(b). Part-II deals with the responsibilities of the Union Territory of Lakshadweep. Part-II(3) says that to support in full the salary package and other charges for the teaching, non-teaching and other support staff appointed for the three Centres as shown in Appendix-II.

Part-III also is very important, which reads thus:

In other words, the MoU indicates that the physical conveniences of the conduct of the colleges or University study centers were to be provided by the Administration, whereas academic aspects will be managed by the University. It is here that the contentions of the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 2 and 3 assume importance. As noticed earlier, the applicants have moved this Tribunal as though they are the engagees under the respondents 2 and 3. But that has come incorrect. From the MoU it is clear that it is the responsibility of the University to provide teaching staff subject to making necessary payment by the Administration.

The copy of the order dated 08.12.2020 issued by the University of Calicut, produced across the Bar also exposes the applicants. It is an order issued by the University extending the period of tenure of the 1^st applicant and two others. It is not necessary to go into the details of this communication produced during the final hearing, by the learned Standing Counsel for the Lakhadweep Administration. From this document it has become explicitly clear that the applicants were appointed by the Calicut University only, in terms of the MoU, Annexure-R1(a).

In fact, the revelation of the fact that the applicants are the Assistant Professors engaged by the Calilcut University clinches the issue. It gives sufficient set back to the case projected by the applicants. This fact makes it abundantly clear that the applicants have no privity of contract with the Lakshadweep Administration. There is no employer-employee relationship between the Administration and the applicants. Therefore, applicants who were engaged by the Calicut University have no locus standi to claim any relief against the Lakshadweep Administration.

Annexure-A7 document, even though is a truncated one, reveals that some of the engagees of the Calicut University were allowed to continue by the Lakshadweep Administration after the termination of the Annexure-R1(a) MoU. It has also become clear that the MoU between the Calicut University and the Administration did not continue beyond March 2021. Thereafter, the colleges are being run by the Lakshadweep Administration itself and affiliation of the courses have been entrusted with the University of Pondicherry.

As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel representing the Calicut University, the applicants were appointed on the strength of the MoU reached between the Calicut University and the Lakshadweep Administration. As their service was controlled by the MoU, they could continue in service only so long as the MoU continued. Such an MoU is not in existence. They parted company and now the affiliation is with the University of Pondicherry.

Moreover, a document has been produced by the learned Standing Counsel along with M.A.28/2024, which is a communication addressed by the Pondicherry University to the Principal, Government College of Arts and Science, Kadmat, which indicates that now there is no course in Arabic language. Even though it is not necessary to look into this aspect, from the points discussed earlier it is obvious that the applicants have no right to claim any relief against respondents 1 to 3 so long as they were not employees at any point of time under the Lakshadweep Administration. They were appointed on contract basis by the Calicut University. The Calicut University is no more in the picture in Lakshadweep. The MoU stands discontinued and the applicants cannot claim any relief against the Lakshadweep Administration.

On consideration of these aspects, I find that the applicants are not entitled to get any relief. The Original Application is bereft of merits and is dismissed. No costs.

Annexure A-1 True copy of the Post Graduation Certificate (M.A.) of the 1st Applicant dated 12-4-2011

Annexure A-2 True copy of the Ph.D Certificate of the 1st Applicant dated 01-06-2017

Annexure A-3 True copy of the Post Graduation Certificate (M.A.) of the 2nd Applicant dated 29-6-2016

Annexure A-4 True copy of the Certificate of NET the 1st Applicant on June 2015

Annexure A-5 True copy of the letter No. F.No.65/02/2021 EDN(AW) dated 28-10-2021 by 3rd respondent

Annexure A-6 True copy of the letter F.No./65/112/22 Edn- HE/185 dated 8-4-2022 appointed Assistant Professors by 3rd Respondent

Annexure A-7 True copy of the letter F.No.65/133/2022-HE dated 5-4-2022 by 3rd Respondent (Relevant Page)

Annexure R1(a) True Copy of the memorandum of Understanding executed on 30.7.2005

Annexure MA R1(b) True copy of the letter dated 01.12.2023