AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.—The Petitioners are working as Lecturers under the School of Engineering of the Cochin University of Science and Technology in different faculties. The issue involved herein is regarding non-reckoning of their past service and teaching experience in AICTE approved Engineering Colleges outside the State for career advancement.
The scheme for career advancement is covered by Exhibit P1 Government Order. The Petitioners therefore sought for various reliefs under the scheme. They are also relying upon Exhibit P2 judgment wherein this Court set aside the relevant provision 3.11.1 to the scheme which restricted the counting of previous service of Lecturers in AICTE approved Engineering Colleges within the State. Thereafter, they approached the authorities of the University. The University by Exhibit P3 informed the first Petitioner herein that the necessary certificates should be produced in proof of their past teaching services from the competent authority such as concerned Directorate of Technical Education or other bodies responsible for overseeing the function of such Colleges in this regard. It is the case of the Petitioners that the Petitioners have been seeking information from various authorities of the States concerned in the matter. Initially, by Exhibit P4, the AICTE informed that the concerned employer is the competent authority to issue service certificate of Self Financing Engineering Colleges approved by the AICTE. By Exhibit P5, one of the Petitioners approached the Director of Technical Education, Chennai, seeking for information in that regard and Exhibit P6 is the reply wherein it is pointed out that for Self Financing Colleges, Director of Technical Education cannot authenticate the experience certificates. Exhibit P7 is a similar letter addressed to the Director of Technical Education, Kerala, wherein the reply given is that experience certificate issued by the AICTE approved Engineering Colleges in the State is being considered for career advancement and currently there is no mechanism for verifying the certificate issued by the Principal of the Self Financing Engineering College. To Exhibit P9 letter given by the 2nd Petitioner to the University, it was replied by the University as per Exhibit P10 that prior service certificate produced by Dr. Mujeeb, Reader in Physics of the Cochin University College of Engineering, Kuttanadu in support of his service rendered at MES Engineering College, Kuttipuram had been considered by the concerned Selection Committee for his placement in the Lecturer (Selection Grade)/Reader post under AICTE Career Advancement Scheme. It is evident from the said letter that the said person had produced the certificate from the Principal of the MES Engineering College, Kuttipuram, but it was not authenticated by any other authority. Therefore, it is contended that in respect of the Petitioners alone a different yardstick is taken, in spite of the directions in Exhibit P2 judgment.
This Court by an interim order dated 27.10.2009 directed the University to consider the claim of the Petitioners in the light of the additional materials they have received as revealed from Paragraph No. 8 of the counter affidavit and communicate the result thereof to the Petitioners. Exhibit P14 is the resolution of the Syndicate wherein a decision was taken; but however they did not agree to accept the certification from the Principals until it is endorsed by the D.T.E. of the concerned State/Registrar of the University.
The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners submitted that the said condition is impossible to be performed in the light of the fact that in various States there is no system of the Director of Technical Education or the Registrar of the University authenticating the experience certificates of a teacher or a Lecturer of any AICTE approved Self Financing College. It is pointed out that the Petitioners had produced experience certificates issued by the Principals at the time of appointment and the said certificates issued were accepted at that point of time also. Therefore, it is pointed out that in the absence of a mechanism available in any of the States, the Petitioners cannot be asked to perform the impossibility.
In this contest, the stand taken by the University as per the counter affidavit is evident from paragraph No. 4. It is stated that as per the standing resolution of the Syndicate, prior experience certificates of the teachers under AICTE should be issued/endorsed/certified by the concerned Directorate of Technical Education/other bodies responsible for such AICTE approved Engineering Colleges outside the State. In fact it is evident from paragraph No. 8 of the counter affidavit that the University had decided to ascertain the genuineness of all such prior experience certificates submitted by the Petitioners from the concerned authority of the respective institutions where the Petitioners put in their past service. Replies in this regard have been received from some Colleges also. It is also explained that once all the certificates are received, based on the competency/genuineness of them, the promotions of the Petitioners will be implemented.
In the counter affidavit filed in I.A. No. 2259/10, Exhibit R4(e) resolution has been produced which is passed after the interim order dated 18.11.2009 in I.A. No. 14178/09 was issued. The University again decided not to accept the certification from the Principals until it is endorsed by the DTE of the concerned State/Registrar of the University. In paragraph No. 6 it is stated that Respondents have considered the service certificates pertaining to the prior service rendered by the Petitioners outside the State received in the University and Petitioners 1, 2, 4 and 5 were placed as Lecturer (Senior Scale) with effect from the due dates. Respective orders are produced as Exhibits R4(f) to R4(i) also.
The stand taken by the University therefore is that unless the experience certificates are duly certified by the Director of Technical Education or the Registrar of the University, action to count their past service cannot be taken.
Evidently, in the light of the replies received by the Petitioners from the different States, it can be seen that in many of the States there is no such system of the Director of Technical Education or the Registrar of the University certifying the experience certificates in respect of AICTE approved Self-Financing Colleges. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner therefore submitted that as the Respondent-University has verified the certificates produced by the Petitioners after checking with the respective Colleges, a further insistence of a due certification issued by the Director of Technical Education is an empty formality. It is pointed out that the Petitioners could have applied for the same, if there was a system prevailing in any of the concerned States.
The learned Government Pleader submitted that as far as this State is concerned, now a decision has been taken whereby the Director of Technical Education and the Additional Director of Collegiate Education have been appointed as the competent authority to certify the service particulars in respect of similarly placed persons. As far as the Petitioners are concerned, they had rendered their services in Self Financing Colleges outside the State. In the light of the fact that there is no such system prevailing in those States, to compel the Petitioners to produce certificates with due certification by the DTE/Registrar will only put them in real hardship for no fault of theirs. Evidently, as far as some of the Petitioners are concerned, their certificates have been accepted also. It is clear from the pleadings that University has contacted the Self Financing institutions wherein the Petitioners had worked and thus confirmed their previous service based on the certificates issued. Therefore, there cannot be any dispute that the certificates are genuine and the previous service cannot be disputed also.
In that view of the matter, it may not be justifiable to say that their previous service cannot be reckoned for the purpose of benefits of Career Advancement Scheme. The impossibility of getting the certification need not result in hardship to the Petitioners in the light of the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. Therefore, even though the Syndicate may be justified in adopting a general norm as far as acceptance of such certificates are concerned, in the light of the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, I find that the Petitioners'' previous service as claimed by them in the certificates can be reckoned for the purpose of granting the benefits of Exhibit P1 Scheme, as ordered in Exhibit P2 judgment.
Therefore, the Writ Petition is allowed. Exhibit P14 to the extent to which the Syndicate has resolved not to accept the certification of Principals until it is endorsed by the concerned DTE/Registrar of the University is quashed. There will be a direction to the University to consider the claims of the Petitioners or those of the Petitioners whose claims are yet to be assessed, based on the experience certificates produced by them, without insisting for the endorsement by the DTE of the concerned State/Registrar of the University and grant the eligible benefits accordingly. Since it is confirmed that already the certificates have been verified from the respective institutions, appropriate orders will be passed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, which will be communicated to the Petitioners also.