ABDUL HAKEEM M.A. & ORS. versus MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 3 S.C.R. 382 · Decided: 28-02-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
382
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 3 S.C.R.
ABDUL HAKEEM M.A. & ORS.
v.
MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 2388-89 of 2019)
FEBRUARY 28, 2019
[UDAY UMESH LALIT AND INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.]
Service Law:
Appointment – Whether temporary or were against substantive
posts – Pay revision – Refusal of – To lecturers/professors appointed
through selection process – On the ground that the posts were
temporary – Writ petition challenging the order/Resolution whereby
the appellants were treated as having  been appointed
temporarily – The University while contesting the petition stated
that the Institution in question was a Self Financing Institution and
therefore the concerned University statutes were not applicable to
the teachers of such institutions – Single Judge of High Court
allowed the petition – However, Division Bench of High Court
allowed the writ appeal holding that the appellants were not the
teachers of the University – Review petition challenging the order
in writ appeal was dismissed – On appeal, held: The facts of the
case indicate that the appointment of the appellants were not
temporary and they were appointed against substantive posts – The
University was also not correct in dissociating itself from the
institution in question – Thus, there was no reason to limit the scope
of extension of the benefit of pay revision to the appellants –
Mahatma Gandhi University Act, 1985 – s. 2(30).
Allowing the appeals and segregating the SLPs, the Court
HELD: Civil Appeal Nos.2388-89 of 2019:
1.1 At no stage, the posts of teachers in engineering
disciplines were referred to or described as contractual or on
part time basis. Their appointment orders did not mention
anything that the appointments were contractual or on part time
basis.  The appointment orders in fact stated that the appointment
would be governed by the provisions of the University Statutes.
All the documents unequivocally suggest that the appointments
[2019] 3 S.C.R. 382
382
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
383
of the appellants were not on contractual basis or for a limited
period of time.  Whenever appointments were to be for limited
duration or on contractual basis, a clear stipulation was always
made in the concerned Resolution or Notification.  The facts on
record indicate that the appointments of the appellants were on
permanent basis and that they were appointed through regular
selection process.  The appellants are right in submitting that
their appointments were on substantive basis and not on
contractual basis or for limited duration of time. [Para 8]
[396-D-H; 397-A]
1.2 The Order issued by the University on 04.08.1999
extended the benefits of the Kerala Government Pay Revision,
1997 to the Non-Teaching (Technical) staff.  The Order issued
by the Government of Kerala on 18.05.2000 for implementing
revised scales of pay for teachers in Engineering Colleges in the
State contemplated extension of revision in line with the
recommendations of AICTE as approved by the Government of
India with effect from 01.01.1996. Though similar benefits were
extended by the University to the teachers of University College
of Engineering, the benefits were restricted and the effect was
given from 01.01.2001 instead of 01.01.1996.  No reason is
available on record why such benefit was restricted and the only
explanation offered is that the teachers of University College of
Engineering were temporarily appointed for a period of three
years or more. As the facts indicate that the appointments of the
appellants were not temporary and that they were appointed
against substantive posts, which were created pursuant to
resolutions passed by the concerned authorities, there was no
reason to limit the scope of extension of benefits.  Even the
Principal of the University College of Engineering in letter dated
18.04.2001 voiced a concern that the teachers in the College
were not temporary and that they would otherwise be entitled to
the extension of some financial benefits. The steps taken and
the stand adopted thereafter by the University is on the premise
that the University College of Engineering under the School of
Technical and Applied Sciences was a Self Financing Institution
which was not getting any grants from the Government/All India
Council and that it was not part of 20 Departments listed under
the Statutes of the University.  There is nothing on record to
ABDUL HAKEEM M.A. & ORS. v. MAHATMA GANDHI
UNIVERSITY & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
384
SUPREME COURT REPORTS

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.