P. GOPINATHAN PILLAI versus UNIVERSITY OF KERALA & ORS.

Citation: [2020] 4 S.C.R. 239 · Decided: 08-04-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHUSHAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
239
P. GOPINATHAN PILLAI
v.
UNIVERSITY OF KERALA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 1641 of 2020)
APRIL 08, 2020
[ASHOK BHUSHAN AND M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
Kerala University Act, 1974 – s.2(2), (7), (19), (27) and (28)
– Appellant was appointed as Project Officer in Centre for Adult
Continuing Education and Extension (CACEE) – Appointment was
accorded sanction by University of Kerala – University implemented
the University Grants Commission (UGC) scale of pay to the CACEE
staff – Appellant was also given the UGC pay scale – Appellant
promoted as Assistant Director in the CACEE – UGC revised the
scale of pay of the CACEE at par i.e. Director, Assistant Director
and Project Officer corresponding to the pay scale of Associate
Professor, Assistant Professor, Reader, Lecturer – Writ Petition filed
by appellant claiming that he is a teacher of the University within
the meaning of the 1974 Act and that he is entitled to continue in
service upto the age of 60 years and cannot be retired at the age of
56 years – Dismissed – Held: CACEE is not a College within the
meaning of s.2(7) since as per the pleadings of the University, it is
neither maintained nor affiliated to the University – No material to
indicate that it is an institution recognised by the University within
the meaning of s.2(19) – CACEE is not maintained by the University
and is a self-financing Centre – Appellant not covered by definition
of teacher or the teacher of the University u/ss.2(27) & 2(28) –
When the appellant does not fulfil the requirement of definition of
teacher or teacher of University, he cannot claim applicability of
Statute 10 of Chapter 3 of 1977 Statutes – Further, even if it is
assumed that the appellant is imparting instruction in different
courses in CACEE that itself cannot make the appellant a teacher
within the meaning of s.2(27) & 2(28) – Appellant having never
been appointed as teacher is not covered by the definition of teacher
of the University – Kerala University First Statutes, 1977 – Statute
2 (f); Chapter 3- Statute 10 – Kerala University First Ordinances,
1978 – Chapter XVII – Service Law.
239
[2020] 4 S.C.R. 239
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
240
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 4 S.C.R.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The Centre i.e. CACEE came to be established
on temporary basis as planned Scheme established by the
Government of India for the purpose of eradicating illiteracy. The
University Grants Commission also funded the Centre and as
pleaded in the counter-affidavit after 31.03.1997 no Agency having
come forward to sponsor the Scheme the Syndicate of the
University resolved to restructure CACEE as a Self-Supporting
Centre. The University has undertaken to render all the
Administrative work of CACEE. The Schedule to the First
Ordinances, 1978 of the Kerala University contains designations
of all posts of University including teaching and non-teaching
posts in various Departments and Centres like University, Service
and Instructions Centres, Computer Centre, English Language
Teaching Centre but posts in CACEE are not included in the
Schedule of the Ordinances which obviously indicates that posts
in Centre are not posts in the University. [Paras 20, 21][247-D-
F]
1.2 The Centre is not a College within the meaning of
Section 2(7), Kerala University Act, 1974 since as per the
pleadings of the University, Centre is neither maintained nor
affiliated to the University. There are no materials on record also
to indicate that the Centre is an institution recognised by the
University within the meaning of Section 2(19). It is true that the
Centre is being run as a Centre under the administrative control
of the University. The definition of Teacher of University in Section
2(28) also refers to a person employed as Teacher in any
institution maintained by the University. From the pleadings on
the record and the materials which are brought on the record it
is apparent that the appellant is not covered by definition of
Teacher or the Teacher of the University under Section 2(27)
and 2(28) of the Kerala University Act, 1974. When the appellant
does not fulfil the requirement of definition of Teacher or Teacher
of University, he cannot claim applicability of Statute 10 of Chapter
3 of the Statutes. Even if it is assumed that the appellant is
imparting instruction in different courses in the Centre that itself
cannot make the appellant Teacher within the meaning of Section
2(27) and 2(28). The appellant having never been appointed as
A
B
C
D
E
F

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